<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_16_0151226</id>
	<title>Are All Bugs Shallow? Questioning Linus's Law</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1266338040000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>root777 writes to point out a provocative blog piece by a Microsoft program manager, questioning one of the almost unquestioned tenets of open source development: that <a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/shawnhernan/archive/2010/02/13/microsoft-s-many-eyeballs-and-the-security-development-lifecycle.aspx">given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow. Are they?</a> Shawn Hernan looks at DARPA's Sardonix experiment and the Coverity static-analysis bug discovery program in open source projects to conclude that perhaps not enough eyeballs are in evidence. Is he wrong? Why? <i>"Most members of the periphery [those outside the core developer group] do not have the necessary debugging skills ... the vast numbers of 'eyeballs' apparently do not exist. ... [C]ode review is hardly all that makes software more secure. Getting software right is very, very difficult. ... Code review alone is not sufficient. Testing is not sufficient. Tools are not sufficient. Features are not sufficient. None of the things we do in isolation are sufficient. To get software truly correct, especially to get it secure, you have to address all phases of the software development lifecycle, and integrate security into the day-to-day activities."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>root777 writes to point out a provocative blog piece by a Microsoft program manager , questioning one of the almost unquestioned tenets of open source development : that given enough eyeballs , all bugs are shallow .
Are they ?
Shawn Hernan looks at DARPA 's Sardonix experiment and the Coverity static-analysis bug discovery program in open source projects to conclude that perhaps not enough eyeballs are in evidence .
Is he wrong ?
Why ? " Most members of the periphery [ those outside the core developer group ] do not have the necessary debugging skills ... the vast numbers of 'eyeballs ' apparently do not exist .
... [ C ] ode review is hardly all that makes software more secure .
Getting software right is very , very difficult .
... Code review alone is not sufficient .
Testing is not sufficient .
Tools are not sufficient .
Features are not sufficient .
None of the things we do in isolation are sufficient .
To get software truly correct , especially to get it secure , you have to address all phases of the software development lifecycle , and integrate security into the day-to-day activities .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>root777 writes to point out a provocative blog piece by a Microsoft program manager, questioning one of the almost unquestioned tenets of open source development: that given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.
Are they?
Shawn Hernan looks at DARPA's Sardonix experiment and the Coverity static-analysis bug discovery program in open source projects to conclude that perhaps not enough eyeballs are in evidence.
Is he wrong?
Why? "Most members of the periphery [those outside the core developer group] do not have the necessary debugging skills ... the vast numbers of 'eyeballs' apparently do not exist.
... [C]ode review is hardly all that makes software more secure.
Getting software right is very, very difficult.
... Code review alone is not sufficient.
Testing is not sufficient.
Tools are not sufficient.
Features are not sufficient.
None of the things we do in isolation are sufficient.
To get software truly correct, especially to get it secure, you have to address all phases of the software development lifecycle, and integrate security into the day-to-day activities.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152890</id>
	<title>Don't forget the users</title>
	<author>plopez</author>
	<datestamp>1266351000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The most important tool, in close to the 20 yrs experience I have had, to discovering flaws is experienced users. It is *their* software which *you* have built for them. *They* know when things are hosed.</p><p>In my experience, FOSS maintainers have take take criticism and released fixes far more rapidly than any software vendor I have ever worked with. And as developer the most important thing to do has been to talk to power users and get their feedback. MS does not do any of this. No matter how much money you pay them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The most important tool , in close to the 20 yrs experience I have had , to discovering flaws is experienced users .
It is * their * software which * you * have built for them .
* They * know when things are hosed.In my experience , FOSS maintainers have take take criticism and released fixes far more rapidly than any software vendor I have ever worked with .
And as developer the most important thing to do has been to talk to power users and get their feedback .
MS does not do any of this .
No matter how much money you pay them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The most important tool, in close to the 20 yrs experience I have had, to discovering flaws is experienced users.
It is *their* software which *you* have built for them.
*They* know when things are hosed.In my experience, FOSS maintainers have take take criticism and released fixes far more rapidly than any software vendor I have ever worked with.
And as developer the most important thing to do has been to talk to power users and get their feedback.
MS does not do any of this.
No matter how much money you pay them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153020</id>
	<title>Re:To get software truly correct...</title>
	<author>xtracto</author>
	<datestamp>1266352440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All this argument is stupid. Building consumer grade bug-free software is impossible, closed or not.</p><p>To develop consumer grade software you *must* use third party libraries. No consumer-grade libraries provided (either open or closed) guarantees that her software is bug-free; hence you must expect that every software libraries you use will have some kind of bug.</p><p>Nevertheless, the lots-of-eyeballs argument seems to me like this financial derivatives (futures or options): When you hold some, you can "potentially"  win  $100,000, but in reality you have nothing, and when the time comes and you have to exercise (hmm execute the code) you may hit jackpot or you may hit a wall (with a bug).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All this argument is stupid .
Building consumer grade bug-free software is impossible , closed or not.To develop consumer grade software you * must * use third party libraries .
No consumer-grade libraries provided ( either open or closed ) guarantees that her software is bug-free ; hence you must expect that every software libraries you use will have some kind of bug.Nevertheless , the lots-of-eyeballs argument seems to me like this financial derivatives ( futures or options ) : When you hold some , you can " potentially " win $ 100,000 , but in reality you have nothing , and when the time comes and you have to exercise ( hmm execute the code ) you may hit jackpot or you may hit a wall ( with a bug ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All this argument is stupid.
Building consumer grade bug-free software is impossible, closed or not.To develop consumer grade software you *must* use third party libraries.
No consumer-grade libraries provided (either open or closed) guarantees that her software is bug-free; hence you must expect that every software libraries you use will have some kind of bug.Nevertheless, the lots-of-eyeballs argument seems to me like this financial derivatives (futures or options): When you hold some, you can "potentially"  win  $100,000, but in reality you have nothing, and when the time comes and you have to exercise (hmm execute the code) you may hit jackpot or you may hit a wall (with a bug).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153398</id>
	<title>Re:Bugs Exist Because We Use the Wrong Software Mo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266314340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure that this theory sounds really far out when you're high, but it has some major holes.</p><p>First, given the understanding that expression C(n) might depend on A(n-2) and B(n-1), we can easily see that a pipelined finite state machine can be optimized so that it uses circular buffers large enough to allow references to computations made in earlier pipeline stages.</p><p>However, suppose you want to recognize a context sensitive grammar? That's a PSPACE-complete problem, so the number of back references can equal or exceed the size of the input. In other words, we cannot statically compute the size of the circular buffer necessary to decide a given CSG, let alone an arbitrary CSG. That means we have to use <em>garbage collection</em> to manage the lifetime of each sub-expression.</p><p>But if we're using garbage collection, then we might as well even use lazy evaluation. And shoot we might as well even write the programs in Lisp.</p><p>Great Scott! I think you've reinvented the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp\_machines" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Lisp machine</a> [wikipedia.org]. Someone call Doc Brown so he can bring us back one of those computing dinosaurs from 1973! We could make millions!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure that this theory sounds really far out when you 're high , but it has some major holes.First , given the understanding that expression C ( n ) might depend on A ( n-2 ) and B ( n-1 ) , we can easily see that a pipelined finite state machine can be optimized so that it uses circular buffers large enough to allow references to computations made in earlier pipeline stages.However , suppose you want to recognize a context sensitive grammar ?
That 's a PSPACE-complete problem , so the number of back references can equal or exceed the size of the input .
In other words , we can not statically compute the size of the circular buffer necessary to decide a given CSG , let alone an arbitrary CSG .
That means we have to use garbage collection to manage the lifetime of each sub-expression.But if we 're using garbage collection , then we might as well even use lazy evaluation .
And shoot we might as well even write the programs in Lisp.Great Scott !
I think you 've reinvented the Lisp machine [ wikipedia.org ] .
Someone call Doc Brown so he can bring us back one of those computing dinosaurs from 1973 !
We could make millions !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure that this theory sounds really far out when you're high, but it has some major holes.First, given the understanding that expression C(n) might depend on A(n-2) and B(n-1), we can easily see that a pipelined finite state machine can be optimized so that it uses circular buffers large enough to allow references to computations made in earlier pipeline stages.However, suppose you want to recognize a context sensitive grammar?
That's a PSPACE-complete problem, so the number of back references can equal or exceed the size of the input.
In other words, we cannot statically compute the size of the circular buffer necessary to decide a given CSG, let alone an arbitrary CSG.
That means we have to use garbage collection to manage the lifetime of each sub-expression.But if we're using garbage collection, then we might as well even use lazy evaluation.
And shoot we might as well even write the programs in Lisp.Great Scott!
I think you've reinvented the Lisp machine [wikipedia.org].
Someone call Doc Brown so he can bring us back one of those computing dinosaurs from 1973!
We could make millions!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31161026</id>
	<title>Re:FUD</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1266318540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One big piece of FUD here is the notion that Microsoft programmers are paid, while open source programmers are not. The open source projects I know of advance mostly because of paid programmers, and I suspect that that is the case in general. That gives them the usual capitalist incentives for finding and removing bugs.</p></div><p>That means that FOSS vs non-FOSS teams are on par with respect to "quality through exposure" (same number of paid developers). The argument being debunked in TFA is that FOSS is superior, because every user out there is a "pair of eyes".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One big piece of FUD here is the notion that Microsoft programmers are paid , while open source programmers are not .
The open source projects I know of advance mostly because of paid programmers , and I suspect that that is the case in general .
That gives them the usual capitalist incentives for finding and removing bugs.That means that FOSS vs non-FOSS teams are on par with respect to " quality through exposure " ( same number of paid developers ) .
The argument being debunked in TFA is that FOSS is superior , because every user out there is a " pair of eyes " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One big piece of FUD here is the notion that Microsoft programmers are paid, while open source programmers are not.
The open source projects I know of advance mostly because of paid programmers, and I suspect that that is the case in general.
That gives them the usual capitalist incentives for finding and removing bugs.That means that FOSS vs non-FOSS teams are on par with respect to "quality through exposure" (same number of paid developers).
The argument being debunked in TFA is that FOSS is superior, because every user out there is a "pair of eyes".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152146</id>
	<title>Bugs are an error in the...</title>
	<author>QuietLagoon</author>
	<datestamp>1266255360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bugs are an error in the process, not the code.  If you find a bug, you need to find the process error that allowed that bug to occur.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bugs are an error in the process , not the code .
If you find a bug , you need to find the process error that allowed that bug to occur .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bugs are an error in the process, not the code.
If you find a bug, you need to find the process error that allowed that bug to occur.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153724</id>
	<title>Re:Choose freedom, not some $attribute</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266320220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course there are limits to what one person can accomplish.  Linus Torvalds didn't write the entire Linux kernel by himself either, there are contributions from thousands of people as well as companies.  If you had the choice between a doctor who's there just to get paid, and a doctor who loves his job and works on medical research, new treatments, and new tools on his spare time, which one would you choose?  If you had the choice between buying a car from a guy who is just doing his job, or a guy who tinkers with cars around the clock, which one would you choose?  Of course in the latter case you have to be careful that the tinkerer also has safety in mind and not just race performance...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course there are limits to what one person can accomplish .
Linus Torvalds did n't write the entire Linux kernel by himself either , there are contributions from thousands of people as well as companies .
If you had the choice between a doctor who 's there just to get paid , and a doctor who loves his job and works on medical research , new treatments , and new tools on his spare time , which one would you choose ?
If you had the choice between buying a car from a guy who is just doing his job , or a guy who tinkers with cars around the clock , which one would you choose ?
Of course in the latter case you have to be careful that the tinkerer also has safety in mind and not just race performance.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course there are limits to what one person can accomplish.
Linus Torvalds didn't write the entire Linux kernel by himself either, there are contributions from thousands of people as well as companies.
If you had the choice between a doctor who's there just to get paid, and a doctor who loves his job and works on medical research, new treatments, and new tools on his spare time, which one would you choose?
If you had the choice between buying a car from a guy who is just doing his job, or a guy who tinkers with cars around the clock, which one would you choose?
Of course in the latter case you have to be careful that the tinkerer also has safety in mind and not just race performance...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152820</id>
	<title>News at 11</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266263280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>blog piece by a Microsoft program manager, questioning one of the almost unquestioned tenets of open source development</p></div></blockquote><p>In other news, tobacco companies claim that smoking isn't linked to lung cancer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>blog piece by a Microsoft program manager , questioning one of the almost unquestioned tenets of open source developmentIn other news , tobacco companies claim that smoking is n't linked to lung cancer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>blog piece by a Microsoft program manager, questioning one of the almost unquestioned tenets of open source developmentIn other news, tobacco companies claim that smoking isn't linked to lung cancer.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153136</id>
	<title>Re:Choose freedom, not some $attribute</title>
	<author>houghi</author>
	<datestamp>1266353820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> This is precisely the kind of argument you become susceptible to if you think that an attribute of software (security) is more important than your freedom.</p></div></blockquote><p>The great software writer Benjamin Franklin already wrote:<br>They who can give up essential freedom to obtain a little temporary security, deserve neither freedom nor security.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is precisely the kind of argument you become susceptible to if you think that an attribute of software ( security ) is more important than your freedom.The great software writer Benjamin Franklin already wrote : They who can give up essential freedom to obtain a little temporary security , deserve neither freedom nor security .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> This is precisely the kind of argument you become susceptible to if you think that an attribute of software (security) is more important than your freedom.The great software writer Benjamin Franklin already wrote:They who can give up essential freedom to obtain a little temporary security, deserve neither freedom nor security.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153122</id>
	<title>Let me be ...</title>
	<author>http</author>
	<datestamp>1266353700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I feel the need to explicitly call this guy a shill, rather than imply it.  IF he honestly believes what he wrote, he's merely an idiot.
</p><p>Shawn Hernan has deliberately misconstrued what Raymond wrote.  Raymond explicitly said that the phrase "Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" was an informal phrasing of the lesson, <b>in the very first sentence of the lesson.</b>  The actual phrasing was given as "Given a large enough beta-tester and co-developer base, almost every problem will be characterized quickly and the fix obvious to someone."  There's not even one sentence separating the two.
</p><p>Trying to rip apart an informal phrasing, and ascribing hidden syllogisms to it, tells me this man is either an ideologue or an idiot.  Given his position, he's a dangerous ideologue or idiot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I feel the need to explicitly call this guy a shill , rather than imply it .
IF he honestly believes what he wrote , he 's merely an idiot .
Shawn Hernan has deliberately misconstrued what Raymond wrote .
Raymond explicitly said that the phrase " Given enough eyeballs , all bugs are shallow " was an informal phrasing of the lesson , in the very first sentence of the lesson .
The actual phrasing was given as " Given a large enough beta-tester and co-developer base , almost every problem will be characterized quickly and the fix obvious to someone .
" There 's not even one sentence separating the two .
Trying to rip apart an informal phrasing , and ascribing hidden syllogisms to it , tells me this man is either an ideologue or an idiot .
Given his position , he 's a dangerous ideologue or idiot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I feel the need to explicitly call this guy a shill, rather than imply it.
IF he honestly believes what he wrote, he's merely an idiot.
Shawn Hernan has deliberately misconstrued what Raymond wrote.
Raymond explicitly said that the phrase "Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" was an informal phrasing of the lesson, in the very first sentence of the lesson.
The actual phrasing was given as "Given a large enough beta-tester and co-developer base, almost every problem will be characterized quickly and the fix obvious to someone.
"  There's not even one sentence separating the two.
Trying to rip apart an informal phrasing, and ascribing hidden syllogisms to it, tells me this man is either an ideologue or an idiot.
Given his position, he's a dangerous ideologue or idiot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153886</id>
	<title>Re:Choose freedom, not some $attribute</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266323040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, you're from Eugene, OR?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , you 're from Eugene , OR ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, you're from Eugene, OR?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31168548</id>
	<title>So..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265037420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So if MS is so good at testing then why the need for anti-virus and spyware detectors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So if MS is so good at testing then why the need for anti-virus and spyware detectors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if MS is so good at testing then why the need for anti-virus and spyware detectors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31156100</id>
	<title>Re:PEBCEK is the issue...</title>
	<author>Cassini2</author>
	<datestamp>1266341280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>That's simply not true. Proper, bug-free code should fail gracefully in the event of odd user behavior.</p></div></blockquote><p>Says someone who has never had a user bring a giant crane crashing down on top of their head.
</p><p>The sequence of events was so convoluted that everyone concerned said: "He actually did that?!"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's simply not true .
Proper , bug-free code should fail gracefully in the event of odd user behavior.Says someone who has never had a user bring a giant crane crashing down on top of their head .
The sequence of events was so convoluted that everyone concerned said : " He actually did that ? !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's simply not true.
Proper, bug-free code should fail gracefully in the event of odd user behavior.Says someone who has never had a user bring a giant crane crashing down on top of their head.
The sequence of events was so convoluted that everyone concerned said: "He actually did that?!
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31158656</id>
	<title>Correctness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266350880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The correctness of a system is a boolean attribute.

The correctness of software with no specification has no meaning.

Most software is an approximation of its specification with lots of holes in it.

An implementation's quality (with regards to its resemblance to its specification) is a function of the resources spent on it.

I started playing with the excellent proof assistant Isabelle <a href="http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/hvg/Isabelle/" title="cam.ac.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/hvg/Isabelle/</a> [cam.ac.uk] before I realized how difficult it was to render even the simplest proof.

I no longer write software because existing proof systems are too unwieldy and the impossibility of proving/disproving system behavior using general-purpose languages is just too depressing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The correctness of a system is a boolean attribute .
The correctness of software with no specification has no meaning .
Most software is an approximation of its specification with lots of holes in it .
An implementation 's quality ( with regards to its resemblance to its specification ) is a function of the resources spent on it .
I started playing with the excellent proof assistant Isabelle http : //www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/hvg/Isabelle/ [ cam.ac.uk ] before I realized how difficult it was to render even the simplest proof .
I no longer write software because existing proof systems are too unwieldy and the impossibility of proving/disproving system behavior using general-purpose languages is just too depressing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The correctness of a system is a boolean attribute.
The correctness of software with no specification has no meaning.
Most software is an approximation of its specification with lots of holes in it.
An implementation's quality (with regards to its resemblance to its specification) is a function of the resources spent on it.
I started playing with the excellent proof assistant Isabelle http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/hvg/Isabelle/ [cam.ac.uk] before I realized how difficult it was to render even the simplest proof.
I no longer write software because existing proof systems are too unwieldy and the impossibility of proving/disproving system behavior using general-purpose languages is just too depressing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152620</id>
	<title>NEWS!</title>
	<author>nudicle</author>
	<datestamp>1266260400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ok, I've got some news for you. The quotation is not meant like an immutable law. There's a really good, important point there, but it's still just a meaningful aphorism. Let me help you with this -- when you see "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow", read it as "given enough eyeballs, [almost all] bugs are shallow".

Does that help? Can we move on now? This discussion is so stupid it's almost painful.

Here are some other things to know: MS blog author wants attention; ESR is a self-important moron.

Thank me later.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , I 've got some news for you .
The quotation is not meant like an immutable law .
There 's a really good , important point there , but it 's still just a meaningful aphorism .
Let me help you with this -- when you see " given enough eyeballs , all bugs are shallow " , read it as " given enough eyeballs , [ almost all ] bugs are shallow " .
Does that help ?
Can we move on now ?
This discussion is so stupid it 's almost painful .
Here are some other things to know : MS blog author wants attention ; ESR is a self-important moron .
Thank me later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, I've got some news for you.
The quotation is not meant like an immutable law.
There's a really good, important point there, but it's still just a meaningful aphorism.
Let me help you with this -- when you see "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow", read it as "given enough eyeballs, [almost all] bugs are shallow".
Does that help?
Can we move on now?
This discussion is so stupid it's almost painful.
Here are some other things to know: MS blog author wants attention; ESR is a self-important moron.
Thank me later.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31155768</id>
	<title>It is interesting</title>
	<author>gillbates</author>
	<datestamp>1266339300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
That the company which has *never* shipped an exploit-free version of Internet Explorer has something to say about security.
</p><p>
It's hard not to troll.  Honestly, providing constructive criticism is difficult to someone so lacking in prudent judgment.  But here goes, in the hopes that someone reading this at Microsoft will actually pay attention:
</p><ol>
<li>Security is not just a marketing buzzword or a *process*.  It is an end result, which requires no weak links in the chain.  The longer your chain, the more likely you'll have a weak link or two.  This is the primary reason why Microsoft cannot produce secure code.  Sure, they can educate their engineers, they can hold code reviews, but at the end of the day, Microsoft has too many links in the chain:
<ol>
<li>They outsource software development.</li>
<li>Their software projects are too large for a single person to understand.  Hence, otherwise innocuous side effects of design can combine and interact to form security vulnerabilities.</li>
<li>Engineers are not held personally responsible for defects.  Contrast this with open source, where poorly written code reflects poorly on the author *throughout the entire world*.  A Microsoft engineer, OTOH, could write simply awful code without affecting his future career prospects.</li>
<li>Most OS projects are written by a few core developers who both know the code intimately and understand fully what is required of it.  They know very well how to test it.  Thus, a formal software engineering practice adds nothing of value.</li>
</ol></li>
<li>At the end of the day, Microsoft has to make money.  Thus, marketing features such as usability trump security.  Deadlines trump security.  The process trumps security.  Intentions aside, the engineer writing code at Microsoft cannot delay a product release to ensure better security.  A FOSS developer can.</li>
<li>Foss provides users with the ability to evaluate the security of their products.  Proprietary software does not.</li>
<li>Producing secure code requires the coder to think like an attacker.  It is a reflective mindset which explores possibilities, which thinks globally about a problem, which likes to spend time thinking, "What if?".  It is not the mindset of someone working a process to meet a deadline.  Secure code is written by people who have time to reflect on their work, to think about the possibilities for abuse, and who can take their time to produce a solution that works, instead of one that is "good enough" in the scheduled time.</li>
</ol></htmltext>
<tokenext>That the company which has * never * shipped an exploit-free version of Internet Explorer has something to say about security .
It 's hard not to troll .
Honestly , providing constructive criticism is difficult to someone so lacking in prudent judgment .
But here goes , in the hopes that someone reading this at Microsoft will actually pay attention : Security is not just a marketing buzzword or a * process * .
It is an end result , which requires no weak links in the chain .
The longer your chain , the more likely you 'll have a weak link or two .
This is the primary reason why Microsoft can not produce secure code .
Sure , they can educate their engineers , they can hold code reviews , but at the end of the day , Microsoft has too many links in the chain : They outsource software development .
Their software projects are too large for a single person to understand .
Hence , otherwise innocuous side effects of design can combine and interact to form security vulnerabilities .
Engineers are not held personally responsible for defects .
Contrast this with open source , where poorly written code reflects poorly on the author * throughout the entire world * .
A Microsoft engineer , OTOH , could write simply awful code without affecting his future career prospects .
Most OS projects are written by a few core developers who both know the code intimately and understand fully what is required of it .
They know very well how to test it .
Thus , a formal software engineering practice adds nothing of value .
At the end of the day , Microsoft has to make money .
Thus , marketing features such as usability trump security .
Deadlines trump security .
The process trumps security .
Intentions aside , the engineer writing code at Microsoft can not delay a product release to ensure better security .
A FOSS developer can .
Foss provides users with the ability to evaluate the security of their products .
Proprietary software does not .
Producing secure code requires the coder to think like an attacker .
It is a reflective mindset which explores possibilities , which thinks globally about a problem , which likes to spend time thinking , " What if ? " .
It is not the mindset of someone working a process to meet a deadline .
Secure code is written by people who have time to reflect on their work , to think about the possibilities for abuse , and who can take their time to produce a solution that works , instead of one that is " good enough " in the scheduled time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
That the company which has *never* shipped an exploit-free version of Internet Explorer has something to say about security.
It's hard not to troll.
Honestly, providing constructive criticism is difficult to someone so lacking in prudent judgment.
But here goes, in the hopes that someone reading this at Microsoft will actually pay attention:

Security is not just a marketing buzzword or a *process*.
It is an end result, which requires no weak links in the chain.
The longer your chain, the more likely you'll have a weak link or two.
This is the primary reason why Microsoft cannot produce secure code.
Sure, they can educate their engineers, they can hold code reviews, but at the end of the day, Microsoft has too many links in the chain:

They outsource software development.
Their software projects are too large for a single person to understand.
Hence, otherwise innocuous side effects of design can combine and interact to form security vulnerabilities.
Engineers are not held personally responsible for defects.
Contrast this with open source, where poorly written code reflects poorly on the author *throughout the entire world*.
A Microsoft engineer, OTOH, could write simply awful code without affecting his future career prospects.
Most OS projects are written by a few core developers who both know the code intimately and understand fully what is required of it.
They know very well how to test it.
Thus, a formal software engineering practice adds nothing of value.
At the end of the day, Microsoft has to make money.
Thus, marketing features such as usability trump security.
Deadlines trump security.
The process trumps security.
Intentions aside, the engineer writing code at Microsoft cannot delay a product release to ensure better security.
A FOSS developer can.
Foss provides users with the ability to evaluate the security of their products.
Proprietary software does not.
Producing secure code requires the coder to think like an attacker.
It is a reflective mindset which explores possibilities, which thinks globally about a problem, which likes to spend time thinking, "What if?".
It is not the mindset of someone working a process to meet a deadline.
Secure code is written by people who have time to reflect on their work, to think about the possibilities for abuse, and who can take their time to produce a solution that works, instead of one that is "good enough" in the scheduled time.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154680</id>
	<title>The process error is that humans are involved</title>
	<author>eyrieowl</author>
	<datestamp>1266332940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Other people have raised points of practicality wrt humans...i.e., that you're going to make things too cumbersome and the like.  I'm sure your rebuttal is that that is simply evidence of an imperfect solution to the process problem.  The flaw, of course, is that your contention is really only a truism.  Humans are involved, and no quantity of process will eliminate all probability of a bug getting through.  The only way to know a program is correct is to prove it, mathematically.  Not all programs can be proven, so you're limited to writing programs in a style which lends them to proofs.  However...even taking those measures isn't really sufficient.  Because imperfect humans are still involved.  Humans are involved either in doing the proof, or in writing the software that does the proof for you.  No matter how many humans you put in that chain of proof, you can not eliminate entirely the probability they all miss something.  Given enough time and enough code, eventually a bug will survive, with any process we can put in place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Other people have raised points of practicality wrt humans...i.e. , that you 're going to make things too cumbersome and the like .
I 'm sure your rebuttal is that that is simply evidence of an imperfect solution to the process problem .
The flaw , of course , is that your contention is really only a truism .
Humans are involved , and no quantity of process will eliminate all probability of a bug getting through .
The only way to know a program is correct is to prove it , mathematically .
Not all programs can be proven , so you 're limited to writing programs in a style which lends them to proofs .
However...even taking those measures is n't really sufficient .
Because imperfect humans are still involved .
Humans are involved either in doing the proof , or in writing the software that does the proof for you .
No matter how many humans you put in that chain of proof , you can not eliminate entirely the probability they all miss something .
Given enough time and enough code , eventually a bug will survive , with any process we can put in place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Other people have raised points of practicality wrt humans...i.e., that you're going to make things too cumbersome and the like.
I'm sure your rebuttal is that that is simply evidence of an imperfect solution to the process problem.
The flaw, of course, is that your contention is really only a truism.
Humans are involved, and no quantity of process will eliminate all probability of a bug getting through.
The only way to know a program is correct is to prove it, mathematically.
Not all programs can be proven, so you're limited to writing programs in a style which lends them to proofs.
However...even taking those measures isn't really sufficient.
Because imperfect humans are still involved.
Humans are involved either in doing the proof, or in writing the software that does the proof for you.
No matter how many humans you put in that chain of proof, you can not eliminate entirely the probability they all miss something.
Given enough time and enough code, eventually a bug will survive, with any process we can put in place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154180</id>
	<title>Re:Code fixes</title>
	<author>packrat2</author>
	<datestamp>1266327840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; given enough eyeballs, the solutions are shallow, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>  given enough eyeballs , the solutions are shallow , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
  given enough eyeballs, the solutions are shallow, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153414</id>
	<title>Old industry strategy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266314700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I work in a completely unrelated field in which safety (the one that makes you go back home at night, not the software kind) is paramount. The main strategy for improving safety is the constant repetition of the old adages: "safety is everyone's responsibility", "safety is not a feature but a design philosophy", "safety must be central to all phases of the product's lifecycle", etc...</p><p>The reason management chooses to bombard employees of all levels with these semi-empty vague sentences is that they trully have no idea how to target safety directly, what causes unsafe conditions and how to prevent these. They are not entirely to blame since most unsafe events have a very low associated probability and are, thus, impossible to predict. The fallback position is that trying to keep safety constantly in the minds of people, albeit as an empty concept, would further reduce this probability</p><p>Mine is an old and antiquate industry. What scares me is that Microsoft, the supposed leader of a new and agile industry, resorts to the same techniques of force feeding a safety culture by exhaustive repetition of these empty statements. It just tells me that they, as my managers, have no fundamental idea of the origins of safety. Except that software safety should and must not be a probabilistic event if you trully know your software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work in a completely unrelated field in which safety ( the one that makes you go back home at night , not the software kind ) is paramount .
The main strategy for improving safety is the constant repetition of the old adages : " safety is everyone 's responsibility " , " safety is not a feature but a design philosophy " , " safety must be central to all phases of the product 's lifecycle " , etc...The reason management chooses to bombard employees of all levels with these semi-empty vague sentences is that they trully have no idea how to target safety directly , what causes unsafe conditions and how to prevent these .
They are not entirely to blame since most unsafe events have a very low associated probability and are , thus , impossible to predict .
The fallback position is that trying to keep safety constantly in the minds of people , albeit as an empty concept , would further reduce this probabilityMine is an old and antiquate industry .
What scares me is that Microsoft , the supposed leader of a new and agile industry , resorts to the same techniques of force feeding a safety culture by exhaustive repetition of these empty statements .
It just tells me that they , as my managers , have no fundamental idea of the origins of safety .
Except that software safety should and must not be a probabilistic event if you trully know your software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work in a completely unrelated field in which safety (the one that makes you go back home at night, not the software kind) is paramount.
The main strategy for improving safety is the constant repetition of the old adages: "safety is everyone's responsibility", "safety is not a feature but a design philosophy", "safety must be central to all phases of the product's lifecycle", etc...The reason management chooses to bombard employees of all levels with these semi-empty vague sentences is that they trully have no idea how to target safety directly, what causes unsafe conditions and how to prevent these.
They are not entirely to blame since most unsafe events have a very low associated probability and are, thus, impossible to predict.
The fallback position is that trying to keep safety constantly in the minds of people, albeit as an empty concept, would further reduce this probabilityMine is an old and antiquate industry.
What scares me is that Microsoft, the supposed leader of a new and agile industry, resorts to the same techniques of force feeding a safety culture by exhaustive repetition of these empty statements.
It just tells me that they, as my managers, have no fundamental idea of the origins of safety.
Except that software safety should and must not be a probabilistic event if you trully know your software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154624</id>
	<title>My eyes, my eyes...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266332700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Evidentally, its actually an attempt at subterfuge.  That horrifying serif font that TFA uses is designed to make all of the "open source eyes" bleed simultaneously, thus ensuring his erroneous point becomes true eventually.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Evidentally , its actually an attempt at subterfuge .
That horrifying serif font that TFA uses is designed to make all of the " open source eyes " bleed simultaneously , thus ensuring his erroneous point becomes true eventually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Evidentally, its actually an attempt at subterfuge.
That horrifying serif font that TFA uses is designed to make all of the "open source eyes" bleed simultaneously, thus ensuring his erroneous point becomes true eventually.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153494</id>
	<title>Re:Bugs Exist Because We Use the Wrong Software Mo</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1266315780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I defend the hypothesis that the two major crises that afflict the computer industry (unreliability and low productivity) are due to our having adopted the Turing Machine as the de facto computing model in the last century</p></div><p>You're hypothesis fails by being based on false assumptions.  The Von Neumann architecture has been the de facto computing model, not the Turing Machine.  Turing Machines suck at IO.<br> <br>
Furthermore you don't seem to understand that the reason computer programs are, as you call them, unreliable and low productivity, is mainly because programming is hard, and most of the time this has nothing to do with threads.  Have you ever spent hours trying to get elements to line up perfectly on a web page in three different browsers?  It is a problem that makes you want to pull your hair out, and yet it doesn't matter whether you are running with threads or with double-buffers, the problem will still be there.  Programming is hard because controlling a computer is hard.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The boomers were wildly successful but this is a new age, the age of massive parallelism and super complex programs. The boomers need to retire and pass the baton to a new generation of computists. Sorry but that's the way I see it.</p></div><p>What the hell? When did this become a generational war?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I defend the hypothesis that the two major crises that afflict the computer industry ( unreliability and low productivity ) are due to our having adopted the Turing Machine as the de facto computing model in the last centuryYou 're hypothesis fails by being based on false assumptions .
The Von Neumann architecture has been the de facto computing model , not the Turing Machine .
Turing Machines suck at IO .
Furthermore you do n't seem to understand that the reason computer programs are , as you call them , unreliable and low productivity , is mainly because programming is hard , and most of the time this has nothing to do with threads .
Have you ever spent hours trying to get elements to line up perfectly on a web page in three different browsers ?
It is a problem that makes you want to pull your hair out , and yet it does n't matter whether you are running with threads or with double-buffers , the problem will still be there .
Programming is hard because controlling a computer is hard.The boomers were wildly successful but this is a new age , the age of massive parallelism and super complex programs .
The boomers need to retire and pass the baton to a new generation of computists .
Sorry but that 's the way I see it.What the hell ?
When did this become a generational war ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I defend the hypothesis that the two major crises that afflict the computer industry (unreliability and low productivity) are due to our having adopted the Turing Machine as the de facto computing model in the last centuryYou're hypothesis fails by being based on false assumptions.
The Von Neumann architecture has been the de facto computing model, not the Turing Machine.
Turing Machines suck at IO.
Furthermore you don't seem to understand that the reason computer programs are, as you call them, unreliable and low productivity, is mainly because programming is hard, and most of the time this has nothing to do with threads.
Have you ever spent hours trying to get elements to line up perfectly on a web page in three different browsers?
It is a problem that makes you want to pull your hair out, and yet it doesn't matter whether you are running with threads or with double-buffers, the problem will still be there.
Programming is hard because controlling a computer is hard.The boomers were wildly successful but this is a new age, the age of massive parallelism and super complex programs.
The boomers need to retire and pass the baton to a new generation of computists.
Sorry but that's the way I see it.What the hell?
When did this become a generational war?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153232</id>
	<title>Heisenbugs are rarely 'shallow'</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266311880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Heisenbugs like race conditions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenbug ) are rarely 'shallow', in that they usually require a lot of analysis, reasoning and testing, and dedicated time to form a mental (or otherwise) model of the code.  The argument for 'shallow' here is the potential number of people willing to invest that kind of effort.</p><p>Having source code helps a lot, even more when you can instrument the code or use some sort of debugger (which itself can change timing etc and perturb the resulting behavior), but I've tracked down heisenbugs without it.</p><p>The previous comments that 'design counts' is certainly true, and there's often trades to be made in the kind of potential conditions you can get.  For instance, some synchronization approaches can trade the chance of deadlock against the chance of race conditions.</p><p>I'll not comment on whether Microsoft code is "better", since I choose to avoid Microsoft products.  (But I will note that many, if not most of the Microsoft desktop products started life outside Microsoft...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Heisenbugs like race conditions ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenbug ) are rarely 'shallow ' , in that they usually require a lot of analysis , reasoning and testing , and dedicated time to form a mental ( or otherwise ) model of the code .
The argument for 'shallow ' here is the potential number of people willing to invest that kind of effort.Having source code helps a lot , even more when you can instrument the code or use some sort of debugger ( which itself can change timing etc and perturb the resulting behavior ) , but I 've tracked down heisenbugs without it.The previous comments that 'design counts ' is certainly true , and there 's often trades to be made in the kind of potential conditions you can get .
For instance , some synchronization approaches can trade the chance of deadlock against the chance of race conditions.I 'll not comment on whether Microsoft code is " better " , since I choose to avoid Microsoft products .
( But I will note that many , if not most of the Microsoft desktop products started life outside Microsoft... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heisenbugs like race conditions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenbug ) are rarely 'shallow', in that they usually require a lot of analysis, reasoning and testing, and dedicated time to form a mental (or otherwise) model of the code.
The argument for 'shallow' here is the potential number of people willing to invest that kind of effort.Having source code helps a lot, even more when you can instrument the code or use some sort of debugger (which itself can change timing etc and perturb the resulting behavior), but I've tracked down heisenbugs without it.The previous comments that 'design counts' is certainly true, and there's often trades to be made in the kind of potential conditions you can get.
For instance, some synchronization approaches can trade the chance of deadlock against the chance of race conditions.I'll not comment on whether Microsoft code is "better", since I choose to avoid Microsoft products.
(But I will note that many, if not most of the Microsoft desktop products started life outside Microsoft...)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153438</id>
	<title>Re:PEBCEK is the issue...</title>
	<author>ch0rlt0n</author>
	<datestamp>1266315180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Test Case AB03-001:<br>Step 1: Place face on right side of keyboard facing left.<br>Step 2: Roll face towards left.<br>Step 3: Roll face back towards right again.<br>Step 4: Lift face.<br>Expected Result: Program should remain in valid state for user entry. No fatal exception.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Test Case AB03-001 : Step 1 : Place face on right side of keyboard facing left.Step 2 : Roll face towards left.Step 3 : Roll face back towards right again.Step 4 : Lift face.Expected Result : Program should remain in valid state for user entry .
No fatal exception .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Test Case AB03-001:Step 1: Place face on right side of keyboard facing left.Step 2: Roll face towards left.Step 3: Roll face back towards right again.Step 4: Lift face.Expected Result: Program should remain in valid state for user entry.
No fatal exception.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154120</id>
	<title>Re:Choose freedom, not some $attribute</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266327000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let us not be too hasty. If the automobile and pharmacutical industries were forced to carry out extensive testing and undergo rigorous independent review and testing of their products then I could be convinced to move away from the backyard auto assembler and the apothecary.</p><p>Eh, what's that? They do? Really? Oh blimey, that's news to me. Presumably Microsoft has to do the same then?</p><p>Oh. That's disappointing then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let us not be too hasty .
If the automobile and pharmacutical industries were forced to carry out extensive testing and undergo rigorous independent review and testing of their products then I could be convinced to move away from the backyard auto assembler and the apothecary.Eh , what 's that ?
They do ?
Really ? Oh blimey , that 's news to me .
Presumably Microsoft has to do the same then ? Oh .
That 's disappointing then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let us not be too hasty.
If the automobile and pharmacutical industries were forced to carry out extensive testing and undergo rigorous independent review and testing of their products then I could be convinced to move away from the backyard auto assembler and the apothecary.Eh, what's that?
They do?
Really? Oh blimey, that's news to me.
Presumably Microsoft has to do the same then?Oh.
That's disappointing then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152392</id>
	<title>You're shifting the point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266258060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're shifting the focus here: the freedom do modify the software is a completely orthogonal topic to improving the software development process. There is nothing that would prevent OpenSource from implementing a better development cycle. Then may be the bugs such as OpenSSL PRNG would not have happened. Dismising his (valid) points, replacing them with a different issue and leaving untouched the premise "may eyeballs produce better quality software (no matter what)" is not productive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're shifting the focus here : the freedom do modify the software is a completely orthogonal topic to improving the software development process .
There is nothing that would prevent OpenSource from implementing a better development cycle .
Then may be the bugs such as OpenSSL PRNG would not have happened .
Dismising his ( valid ) points , replacing them with a different issue and leaving untouched the premise " may eyeballs produce better quality software ( no matter what ) " is not productive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're shifting the focus here: the freedom do modify the software is a completely orthogonal topic to improving the software development process.
There is nothing that would prevent OpenSource from implementing a better development cycle.
Then may be the bugs such as OpenSSL PRNG would not have happened.
Dismising his (valid) points, replacing them with a different issue and leaving untouched the premise "may eyeballs produce better quality software (no matter what)" is not productive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153166</id>
	<title>Im a bug!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266310980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And I don't appriciate beeing called shallow, you insensitive clod!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I do n't appriciate beeing called shallow , you insensitive clod !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I don't appriciate beeing called shallow, you insensitive clod!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154552</id>
	<title>Re:PEBCEK is the issue...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266332280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you want the user to do the predictable thing? Let me whip up some code for your expected input..<br>Users are not robots, they will and do use their input tools in every imaginable way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you want the user to do the predictable thing ?
Let me whip up some code for your expected input..Users are not robots , they will and do use their input tools in every imaginable way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you want the user to do the predictable thing?
Let me whip up some code for your expected input..Users are not robots, they will and do use their input tools in every imaginable way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154168</id>
	<title>Pithy statement stretched</title>
	<author>some-old-geek</author>
	<datestamp>1266327660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Today, a pithy aphorism was found to be not literally true.  Film at 11.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Today , a pithy aphorism was found to be not literally true .
Film at 11 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Today, a pithy aphorism was found to be not literally true.
Film at 11.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31159334</id>
	<title>Re:To get software truly correct...</title>
	<author>wall0159</author>
	<datestamp>1266353880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure they do. And I know how to fly - I just choose not to...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure they do .
And I know how to fly - I just choose not to.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure they do.
And I know how to fly - I just choose not to...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31160250</id>
	<title>Re:Choose freedom, not some $attribute</title>
	<author>thtrgremlin</author>
	<datestamp>1266314880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>medicine is open source. You can go to a library and look shit up yourself. Trade secrets in drugs is only allowed so far. Doctors don't put chips in you that will kill you if you try and visit a different doctor.<br> <br>And just like any other open source, freedom always comes with personal responsibility; you need to put in a lot of effort to make any sense of what is out there or how the information can be used to improve your quality of life. BUT I do know that people that take time to do some research and ask their doctor informed questions and work with their doctor about the treatment or care they need, the better the care provided. If you just go to a doctor because you think something might be wrong and you just let them 'do their thing because they are the doctor', care is going to be very expensive, if you can afford it, and it is unlikely you will be very happy with the results. And how could you, you don't even know what they are doing.<br> <br>Completely aside, proprietary software tends to reinvent everything with every project. Security in open source software has a few independently developed components that can be reused across a range of software. Teams focus on that one component, and when that project updates every connected piece of software improves. In proprietary software all compatibility and integration is explicit; every application seems to live in its own special bubble rather than being integrated. For cross project integration and compatibility, nothing comes close to Linux/FLOSS environment.</htmltext>
<tokenext>medicine is open source .
You can go to a library and look shit up yourself .
Trade secrets in drugs is only allowed so far .
Doctors do n't put chips in you that will kill you if you try and visit a different doctor .
And just like any other open source , freedom always comes with personal responsibility ; you need to put in a lot of effort to make any sense of what is out there or how the information can be used to improve your quality of life .
BUT I do know that people that take time to do some research and ask their doctor informed questions and work with their doctor about the treatment or care they need , the better the care provided .
If you just go to a doctor because you think something might be wrong and you just let them 'do their thing because they are the doctor ' , care is going to be very expensive , if you can afford it , and it is unlikely you will be very happy with the results .
And how could you , you do n't even know what they are doing .
Completely aside , proprietary software tends to reinvent everything with every project .
Security in open source software has a few independently developed components that can be reused across a range of software .
Teams focus on that one component , and when that project updates every connected piece of software improves .
In proprietary software all compatibility and integration is explicit ; every application seems to live in its own special bubble rather than being integrated .
For cross project integration and compatibility , nothing comes close to Linux/FLOSS environment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>medicine is open source.
You can go to a library and look shit up yourself.
Trade secrets in drugs is only allowed so far.
Doctors don't put chips in you that will kill you if you try and visit a different doctor.
And just like any other open source, freedom always comes with personal responsibility; you need to put in a lot of effort to make any sense of what is out there or how the information can be used to improve your quality of life.
BUT I do know that people that take time to do some research and ask their doctor informed questions and work with their doctor about the treatment or care they need, the better the care provided.
If you just go to a doctor because you think something might be wrong and you just let them 'do their thing because they are the doctor', care is going to be very expensive, if you can afford it, and it is unlikely you will be very happy with the results.
And how could you, you don't even know what they are doing.
Completely aside, proprietary software tends to reinvent everything with every project.
Security in open source software has a few independently developed components that can be reused across a range of software.
Teams focus on that one component, and when that project updates every connected piece of software improves.
In proprietary software all compatibility and integration is explicit; every application seems to live in its own special bubble rather than being integrated.
For cross project integration and compatibility, nothing comes close to Linux/FLOSS environment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31155000</id>
	<title>Re:To get software truly correct...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266335220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>they are as qualified as anyone -- they know how hard it is</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they are as qualified as anyone -- they know how hard it is</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they are as qualified as anyone -- they know how hard it is</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152420</id>
	<title>More Microsoft FUD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266258300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Newsflash "Microsoft Employee quotes another Microsoft Employee who says Open Source is crap".
</p><p>
I might give the blog some small amount of thought if Microsoft had ever produced any software of any quality whatsoever.  Microsoft's area of expertize has always been in marketing and this is an example of it.
</p><p>
More specifically, if you're going to attack the logic of a statement please don't use an argument to authority to do so.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Newsflash " Microsoft Employee quotes another Microsoft Employee who says Open Source is crap " .
I might give the blog some small amount of thought if Microsoft had ever produced any software of any quality whatsoever .
Microsoft 's area of expertize has always been in marketing and this is an example of it .
More specifically , if you 're going to attack the logic of a statement please do n't use an argument to authority to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Newsflash "Microsoft Employee quotes another Microsoft Employee who says Open Source is crap".
I might give the blog some small amount of thought if Microsoft had ever produced any software of any quality whatsoever.
Microsoft's area of expertize has always been in marketing and this is an example of it.
More specifically, if you're going to attack the logic of a statement please don't use an argument to authority to do so.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153104</id>
	<title>anonymous coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266353460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This seems to be no more than a M$ rep saying they have more "eyeballs" than linux because they pay for their "eyeballs".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This seems to be no more than a M $ rep saying they have more " eyeballs " than linux because they pay for their " eyeballs " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This seems to be no more than a M$ rep saying they have more "eyeballs" than linux because they pay for their "eyeballs".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152826</id>
	<title>Re:Choose freedom, not some $attribute</title>
	<author>blahplusplus</author>
	<datestamp>1266263640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Choose freedom first and interested parties will take care of attributes like security, ease-of-use, and compatibility over time."</p><p>I think another problem is that more eyes on a project means that you can come up with alternative designs.  It's one thing to track bugs through statistics and process, it's quite another to see that the design itself is the problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Choose freedom first and interested parties will take care of attributes like security , ease-of-use , and compatibility over time .
" I think another problem is that more eyes on a project means that you can come up with alternative designs .
It 's one thing to track bugs through statistics and process , it 's quite another to see that the design itself is the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Choose freedom first and interested parties will take care of attributes like security, ease-of-use, and compatibility over time.
"I think another problem is that more eyes on a project means that you can come up with alternative designs.
It's one thing to track bugs through statistics and process, it's quite another to see that the design itself is the problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31156562</id>
	<title>Groovy! Next Boomer Geek meeting</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1266343440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The boomers need to retire and pass the baton to a new generation of computists."</p><p>Perhaps I can pass this along at the next boomer geek meeting.</p><p>Seriously, geeks in my age group have a lot of diversity of opinion and we aren't all thread-happy. As far as retirement goes, I'd Dig it as long as you Cats bring me enough Bread.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The boomers need to retire and pass the baton to a new generation of computists .
" Perhaps I can pass this along at the next boomer geek meeting.Seriously , geeks in my age group have a lot of diversity of opinion and we are n't all thread-happy .
As far as retirement goes , I 'd Dig it as long as you Cats bring me enough Bread .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The boomers need to retire and pass the baton to a new generation of computists.
"Perhaps I can pass this along at the next boomer geek meeting.Seriously, geeks in my age group have a lot of diversity of opinion and we aren't all thread-happy.
As far as retirement goes, I'd Dig it as long as you Cats bring me enough Bread.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152974</id>
	<title>Re:Choose freedom, not some $attribute</title>
	<author>drsmithy</author>
	<datestamp>1266351960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>  I know which one I trust.</i>
</p><p>I know what you mean.  I only drive cars that have been hand-assembled by individuals working out of their backyards.  Similarly, I wouldn't dream of visiting a doctor who didn't make all his own tools or who sent me to an apothecarist who wasn't personally assembling all his medicine from locally-sourced ingredients.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know which one I trust .
I know what you mean .
I only drive cars that have been hand-assembled by individuals working out of their backyards .
Similarly , I would n't dream of visiting a doctor who did n't make all his own tools or who sent me to an apothecarist who was n't personally assembling all his medicine from locally-sourced ingredients .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>   I know which one I trust.
I know what you mean.
I only drive cars that have been hand-assembled by individuals working out of their backyards.
Similarly, I wouldn't dream of visiting a doctor who didn't make all his own tools or who sent me to an apothecarist who wasn't personally assembling all his medicine from locally-sourced ingredients.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31160640</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, right....</title>
	<author>debatem1</author>
	<datestamp>1266316860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>To play devil's advocate, there is the issue that Microsoft products have 10 times the "eyes" looking for security vulnerabilities than Linux-based products do.</p></div><p>According to the intertubez, which may or may not be trustworthy, approximately 2000 programmers worked on the Windows 7 codebase. I think its safe to say that most of them were not working
on kernel code. Its also pretty safe to say that not very many people outside of that group have seen said code.<br>
<br>
Roughly 3000 developers work on the Linux kernel right now.<br>
<br>
So even by that incredibly conservative metric, it's hard to conclude that more people have had eyes on microsoft's codebase than on linux, let alone that 10 times as many have.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To play devil 's advocate , there is the issue that Microsoft products have 10 times the " eyes " looking for security vulnerabilities than Linux-based products do.According to the intertubez , which may or may not be trustworthy , approximately 2000 programmers worked on the Windows 7 codebase .
I think its safe to say that most of them were not working on kernel code .
Its also pretty safe to say that not very many people outside of that group have seen said code .
Roughly 3000 developers work on the Linux kernel right now .
So even by that incredibly conservative metric , it 's hard to conclude that more people have had eyes on microsoft 's codebase than on linux , let alone that 10 times as many have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To play devil's advocate, there is the issue that Microsoft products have 10 times the "eyes" looking for security vulnerabilities than Linux-based products do.According to the intertubez, which may or may not be trustworthy, approximately 2000 programmers worked on the Windows 7 codebase.
I think its safe to say that most of them were not working
on kernel code.
Its also pretty safe to say that not very many people outside of that group have seen said code.
Roughly 3000 developers work on the Linux kernel right now.
So even by that incredibly conservative metric, it's hard to conclude that more people have had eyes on microsoft's codebase than on linux, let alone that 10 times as many have.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31157710</id>
	<title>Re:Choose freedom, not some $attribute</title>
	<author>david\_thornley</author>
	<datestamp>1266347340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Filling in for BadAnalogyGuy?   How about:  I wouldn't dream of visiting a doctor who just told me what to do, and wouldn't explain his or her reasoning, what's wrong with my body, and/or what the recommendation is supposed to accomplish.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Filling in for BadAnalogyGuy ?
How about : I would n't dream of visiting a doctor who just told me what to do , and would n't explain his or her reasoning , what 's wrong with my body , and/or what the recommendation is supposed to accomplish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Filling in for BadAnalogyGuy?
How about:  I wouldn't dream of visiting a doctor who just told me what to do, and wouldn't explain his or her reasoning, what's wrong with my body, and/or what the recommendation is supposed to accomplish.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31156000</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, right....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266340680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No.  That is not what they say.  They say the "proof of the pudding is in the eating."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
That is not what they say .
They say the " proof of the pudding is in the eating .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
That is not what they say.
They say the "proof of the pudding is in the eating.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31156184</id>
	<title>Re:To get software truly correct...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266341760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately, many companies use the logic: "They are a big software company with high revenue. Therefore, they must be experts in everything to do with software."</p><p>That logic didn't work for Enron, and it doesn't work for Microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , many companies use the logic : " They are a big software company with high revenue .
Therefore , they must be experts in everything to do with software .
" That logic did n't work for Enron , and it does n't work for Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, many companies use the logic: "They are a big software company with high revenue.
Therefore, they must be experts in everything to do with software.
"That logic didn't work for Enron, and it doesn't work for Microsoft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152280</id>
	<title>Silent L</title>
	<author>c0d3r</author>
	<datestamp>1266256800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many bugs are caused by the silent L in in the word USER.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many bugs are caused by the silent L in in the word USER .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many bugs are caused by the silent L in in the word USER.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154356</id>
	<title>Security of open source software</title>
	<author>root777</author>
	<datestamp>1266330360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The security of open source software has been both idealized and made the subject of targeted disinformation.<p>Generally, two philosophies exist:<br>

that open source is more secure because it is more rigorously reviewed;<br>
and, that proprietary software is more secure because access to the source code is limited.<br>

While seeming contradictory, both schools of thought have validity depending on circumstances. Open source philosophy states that <a href="http://www.root777.com/computer-security/security-of-open-source-software/" title="root777.com" rel="nofollow"> open source software cannot rely on obscurity for security </a> [root777.com] &mdash; because the source code is transparent, security
must be implemented well at the source code level. Also, open collaboration is thought to result in the earlier discovery and correction of security flaws&mdash;an aspect of the thesis that &ldquo;given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The security of open source software has been both idealized and made the subject of targeted disinformation.Generally , two philosophies exist : that open source is more secure because it is more rigorously reviewed ; and , that proprietary software is more secure because access to the source code is limited .
While seeming contradictory , both schools of thought have validity depending on circumstances .
Open source philosophy states that open source software can not rely on obscurity for security [ root777.com ]    because the source code is transparent , security must be implemented well at the source code level .
Also , open collaboration is thought to result in the earlier discovery and correction of security flaws    an aspect of the thesis that    given enough eyeballs , all bugs are shallow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The security of open source software has been both idealized and made the subject of targeted disinformation.Generally, two philosophies exist:

that open source is more secure because it is more rigorously reviewed;
and, that proprietary software is more secure because access to the source code is limited.
While seeming contradictory, both schools of thought have validity depending on circumstances.
Open source philosophy states that  open source software cannot rely on obscurity for security  [root777.com] — because the source code is transparent, security
must be implemented well at the source code level.
Also, open collaboration is thought to result in the earlier discovery and correction of security flaws—an aspect of the thesis that “given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31161852</id>
	<title>MS Employee admit Windows=NeverSafe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266322680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://edge.technet.com/Media/Interview-with-Mark-Russinovich-the-future-of-Sysinternals-Security-Windows" title="technet.com" rel="nofollow">http://edge.technet.com/Media/Interview-with-Mark-Russinovich-the-future-of-Sysinternals-Security-Windows</a> [technet.com]<br><a href="http://mschnlnine.vo.llnwd.net/d1/edge/2/9/5/1/MarkRussinovichEdge\_edge.wmv" title="llnwd.net" rel="nofollow">http://mschnlnine.vo.llnwd.net/d1/edge/2/9/5/1/MarkRussinovichEdge\_edge.wmv</a> [llnwd.net]<br>Most of the video is basic market hype. But at 27:10<br>Why not scrap the entire Windows code base and start over?<br>Russinovich openly freely admit that it's simply too much work!<br>CONCLUSIONS<br>1. Vista/7/8 = Forever Unsafe.<br>2. Microsoft dont even want to try making a safe Windows.</p><p><a href="http://mschnlnine.vo.llnwd.net/d1/ch9/9/1/1/5/3/4/RussinovichInsideWindows7\_ch9.wmv" title="llnwd.net" rel="nofollow">http://mschnlnine.vo.llnwd.net/d1/ch9/9/1/1/5/3/4/RussinovichInsideWindows7\_ch9.wmv</a> [llnwd.net]<br>Most of the video is basic market hype. But at 41.50<br>Russinovich explain one of the reasons why Vista/7 will always be bloated.<br>CONCLUSION<br>Every Windows will be slower and slower and slower and slower.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //edge.technet.com/Media/Interview-with-Mark-Russinovich-the-future-of-Sysinternals-Security-Windows [ technet.com ] http : //mschnlnine.vo.llnwd.net/d1/edge/2/9/5/1/MarkRussinovichEdge \ _edge.wmv [ llnwd.net ] Most of the video is basic market hype .
But at 27 : 10Why not scrap the entire Windows code base and start over ? Russinovich openly freely admit that it 's simply too much work ! CONCLUSIONS1 .
Vista/7/8 = Forever Unsafe.2 .
Microsoft dont even want to try making a safe Windows.http : //mschnlnine.vo.llnwd.net/d1/ch9/9/1/1/5/3/4/RussinovichInsideWindows7 \ _ch9.wmv [ llnwd.net ] Most of the video is basic market hype .
But at 41.50Russinovich explain one of the reasons why Vista/7 will always be bloated.CONCLUSIONEvery Windows will be slower and slower and slower and slower .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://edge.technet.com/Media/Interview-with-Mark-Russinovich-the-future-of-Sysinternals-Security-Windows [technet.com]http://mschnlnine.vo.llnwd.net/d1/edge/2/9/5/1/MarkRussinovichEdge\_edge.wmv [llnwd.net]Most of the video is basic market hype.
But at 27:10Why not scrap the entire Windows code base and start over?Russinovich openly freely admit that it's simply too much work!CONCLUSIONS1.
Vista/7/8 = Forever Unsafe.2.
Microsoft dont even want to try making a safe Windows.http://mschnlnine.vo.llnwd.net/d1/ch9/9/1/1/5/3/4/RussinovichInsideWindows7\_ch9.wmv [llnwd.net]Most of the video is basic market hype.
But at 41.50Russinovich explain one of the reasons why Vista/7 will always be bloated.CONCLUSIONEvery Windows will be slower and slower and slower and slower.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154808</id>
	<title>Re:Choose freedom, not some $attribute</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1266333900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not a question of who you trust, it's a question of *how much* you trust them. I don't trust MS with a lot of stuff, including a lot of my personal security. But I wouldn't trust OSS enough to recommend it for a corporate environment either (in most cases). I can't go to my boss and recommend a piece of software that may be buggy, has poor to non-existent support and documentation, has unpredictable updates, and may end up a piece of abandonware. With established companies like MS, Adobe, etc. you at least don't have to worry as much about issues like that. Sometimes it's worth the extra money to pay for the name-brand stuff.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not a question of who you trust , it 's a question of * how much * you trust them .
I do n't trust MS with a lot of stuff , including a lot of my personal security .
But I would n't trust OSS enough to recommend it for a corporate environment either ( in most cases ) .
I ca n't go to my boss and recommend a piece of software that may be buggy , has poor to non-existent support and documentation , has unpredictable updates , and may end up a piece of abandonware .
With established companies like MS , Adobe , etc .
you at least do n't have to worry as much about issues like that .
Sometimes it 's worth the extra money to pay for the name-brand stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not a question of who you trust, it's a question of *how much* you trust them.
I don't trust MS with a lot of stuff, including a lot of my personal security.
But I wouldn't trust OSS enough to recommend it for a corporate environment either (in most cases).
I can't go to my boss and recommend a piece of software that may be buggy, has poor to non-existent support and documentation, has unpredictable updates, and may end up a piece of abandonware.
With established companies like MS, Adobe, etc.
you at least don't have to worry as much about issues like that.
Sometimes it's worth the extra money to pay for the name-brand stuff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154112</id>
	<title>Re:Choose freedom, not some $attribute</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266326940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Although your sentiment is sarcastic, I definitive would have more trust in a doctor who would be at least capable of repairing his own tools and and an apothecarist that is able to assemble medicine from locally sourced ingredients.</p><p>Otherwise you have a doctor who is not aware of the true capabilities of the tools used, both in healing and harming and an apothecarist that actually believes the supplier of their medicine has truly an interest in the the health of their users, so that they get the most effective drugs which would then of course mean that the costumer does not need their product anymore.</p><p>Out here where I live, commercial interest is to deliver faulty cars if that would work out cheaper to pay compensation than to recall all affected cars. It is in the big pharma's best interest to get us as sick as possible with only their medication to prevent people from falling over too much.</p><p>This is not the fault of the (greedy, capitalist are bad, bla bla) companies, it is the fault of the individuals who are more interested in the wrongdoing of their neighbor than they are interested in starting a better world by just starting in their own little world.</p><p>You don't have to be a hard core conspiracy theorist, just questioning once in a while that what is told with; who says that, who else says that and the most important, if so who profits from it - if I believe it.</p><p>If the people who say it have truly opposite interests and beliefs and the one who profit from it is either everybody or nobody, than you might just have a chance of actual truthfulness.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Although your sentiment is sarcastic , I definitive would have more trust in a doctor who would be at least capable of repairing his own tools and and an apothecarist that is able to assemble medicine from locally sourced ingredients.Otherwise you have a doctor who is not aware of the true capabilities of the tools used , both in healing and harming and an apothecarist that actually believes the supplier of their medicine has truly an interest in the the health of their users , so that they get the most effective drugs which would then of course mean that the costumer does not need their product anymore.Out here where I live , commercial interest is to deliver faulty cars if that would work out cheaper to pay compensation than to recall all affected cars .
It is in the big pharma 's best interest to get us as sick as possible with only their medication to prevent people from falling over too much.This is not the fault of the ( greedy , capitalist are bad , bla bla ) companies , it is the fault of the individuals who are more interested in the wrongdoing of their neighbor than they are interested in starting a better world by just starting in their own little world.You do n't have to be a hard core conspiracy theorist , just questioning once in a while that what is told with ; who says that , who else says that and the most important , if so who profits from it - if I believe it.If the people who say it have truly opposite interests and beliefs and the one who profit from it is either everybody or nobody , than you might just have a chance of actual truthfulness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although your sentiment is sarcastic, I definitive would have more trust in a doctor who would be at least capable of repairing his own tools and and an apothecarist that is able to assemble medicine from locally sourced ingredients.Otherwise you have a doctor who is not aware of the true capabilities of the tools used, both in healing and harming and an apothecarist that actually believes the supplier of their medicine has truly an interest in the the health of their users, so that they get the most effective drugs which would then of course mean that the costumer does not need their product anymore.Out here where I live, commercial interest is to deliver faulty cars if that would work out cheaper to pay compensation than to recall all affected cars.
It is in the big pharma's best interest to get us as sick as possible with only their medication to prevent people from falling over too much.This is not the fault of the (greedy, capitalist are bad, bla bla) companies, it is the fault of the individuals who are more interested in the wrongdoing of their neighbor than they are interested in starting a better world by just starting in their own little world.You don't have to be a hard core conspiracy theorist, just questioning once in a while that what is told with; who says that, who else says that and the most important, if so who profits from it - if I believe it.If the people who say it have truly opposite interests and beliefs and the one who profit from it is either everybody or nobody, than you might just have a chance of actual truthfulness.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31156972</id>
	<title>Re:Choose freedom, not some $attribute</title>
	<author>jlechem</author>
	<datestamp>1266344760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Choose freedom first and interested parties will take care of attributes like security, ease-of-use, and compatibility over time."</p><p>That's his entire point, OSS doesn't have enough people looking at the code who can actually do something to fix security problems.  I'm a developer but I don't know jack shit about the linux kernel so I stand a small chance of being able to help it.  Maybe I should hunker down and spend the next 6 months learning the code and then the next 6 months getting commit access and then finally I might be able to make linux more secure.  MS has an army of well paid and highly talented folks who are working on these issues every day.  And guess what it shows in their products.  Sorry folks but it's been Linx the year of the desktop! for waaaaay too long now.  People here bash MS but they put out highly polished products that get the job done for a lot of users every day.  Competition is good and I wish the OSS people out there the best but man they got some work ahead of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Choose freedom first and interested parties will take care of attributes like security , ease-of-use , and compatibility over time .
" That 's his entire point , OSS does n't have enough people looking at the code who can actually do something to fix security problems .
I 'm a developer but I do n't know jack shit about the linux kernel so I stand a small chance of being able to help it .
Maybe I should hunker down and spend the next 6 months learning the code and then the next 6 months getting commit access and then finally I might be able to make linux more secure .
MS has an army of well paid and highly talented folks who are working on these issues every day .
And guess what it shows in their products .
Sorry folks but it 's been Linx the year of the desktop !
for waaaaay too long now .
People here bash MS but they put out highly polished products that get the job done for a lot of users every day .
Competition is good and I wish the OSS people out there the best but man they got some work ahead of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Choose freedom first and interested parties will take care of attributes like security, ease-of-use, and compatibility over time.
"That's his entire point, OSS doesn't have enough people looking at the code who can actually do something to fix security problems.
I'm a developer but I don't know jack shit about the linux kernel so I stand a small chance of being able to help it.
Maybe I should hunker down and spend the next 6 months learning the code and then the next 6 months getting commit access and then finally I might be able to make linux more secure.
MS has an army of well paid and highly talented folks who are working on these issues every day.
And guess what it shows in their products.
Sorry folks but it's been Linx the year of the desktop!
for waaaaay too long now.
People here bash MS but they put out highly polished products that get the job done for a lot of users every day.
Competition is good and I wish the OSS people out there the best but man they got some work ahead of them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154366</id>
	<title>Re:Choose freedom, not some $attribute</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266330480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I only drive cars that have been hand-assembled by individuals working out of their backyards. Similarly, I wouldn't dream of visiting a doctor who didn't make all his own tools or who sent me to an apothecarist who wasn't personally assembling all his medicine from locally-sourced ingredients.</p></div><p>It's not about doing everything yourself, though, it's about your reason for doing things. Concerning cars, you do have a point, but taking doctors, for example, why does your doctor do what he does?</p><p>Oh, sure, he wants to make a living; probably comfortable one, too, that allows him to have a nice house, big car, trophy wife and time to play golf on Wednesday afternoon. But beyond that, is his primary motivation helping people, or is his primary goal to make as much money as humanly possible, with healing people being nothing but a means to achieve that end?</p><p>Put more succinctly, if your doctor had to *choose* - say, if he had to choose between helping you get rid of a problem, or making sure you stayed sick so you'd continue to come in, what would he choose? If he had to choose between an expensive-and-less-effective method of treating what ails you and a cheap-but-effective one, what would he choose?</p><p>Of course every doctor cares about having an income, but wouldn't you prefer a doctor that, if he had to choose between your health and a few extra bucks, would actually do what's best for you, not what's best for your wallet?</p><p>That's what the GP is saying.</p><p>(Another analogy: consider, say, newspapers, websites, TV and so on; it's often said that we're not customers, we're the product being sold to the customers (advertisers). We know this, and we thus realize that e.g. TV doesn't genuinely have our best interests in mind. Software companies - in fact, pretty much all companies - are like that, too: they don't care about YOU or your problem or how well their product will work for you, they care about getting your money. Have you ever wondered why things like the upgrade treadmill, vendor lock-in etc. exist, why MS Office can't properly read files created by earlier versions of itself, and so on? This is why. And free software does have an advantage in that regard at least.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I only drive cars that have been hand-assembled by individuals working out of their backyards .
Similarly , I would n't dream of visiting a doctor who did n't make all his own tools or who sent me to an apothecarist who was n't personally assembling all his medicine from locally-sourced ingredients.It 's not about doing everything yourself , though , it 's about your reason for doing things .
Concerning cars , you do have a point , but taking doctors , for example , why does your doctor do what he does ? Oh , sure , he wants to make a living ; probably comfortable one , too , that allows him to have a nice house , big car , trophy wife and time to play golf on Wednesday afternoon .
But beyond that , is his primary motivation helping people , or is his primary goal to make as much money as humanly possible , with healing people being nothing but a means to achieve that end ? Put more succinctly , if your doctor had to * choose * - say , if he had to choose between helping you get rid of a problem , or making sure you stayed sick so you 'd continue to come in , what would he choose ?
If he had to choose between an expensive-and-less-effective method of treating what ails you and a cheap-but-effective one , what would he choose ? Of course every doctor cares about having an income , but would n't you prefer a doctor that , if he had to choose between your health and a few extra bucks , would actually do what 's best for you , not what 's best for your wallet ? That 's what the GP is saying .
( Another analogy : consider , say , newspapers , websites , TV and so on ; it 's often said that we 're not customers , we 're the product being sold to the customers ( advertisers ) .
We know this , and we thus realize that e.g .
TV does n't genuinely have our best interests in mind .
Software companies - in fact , pretty much all companies - are like that , too : they do n't care about YOU or your problem or how well their product will work for you , they care about getting your money .
Have you ever wondered why things like the upgrade treadmill , vendor lock-in etc .
exist , why MS Office ca n't properly read files created by earlier versions of itself , and so on ?
This is why .
And free software does have an advantage in that regard at least .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I only drive cars that have been hand-assembled by individuals working out of their backyards.
Similarly, I wouldn't dream of visiting a doctor who didn't make all his own tools or who sent me to an apothecarist who wasn't personally assembling all his medicine from locally-sourced ingredients.It's not about doing everything yourself, though, it's about your reason for doing things.
Concerning cars, you do have a point, but taking doctors, for example, why does your doctor do what he does?Oh, sure, he wants to make a living; probably comfortable one, too, that allows him to have a nice house, big car, trophy wife and time to play golf on Wednesday afternoon.
But beyond that, is his primary motivation helping people, or is his primary goal to make as much money as humanly possible, with healing people being nothing but a means to achieve that end?Put more succinctly, if your doctor had to *choose* - say, if he had to choose between helping you get rid of a problem, or making sure you stayed sick so you'd continue to come in, what would he choose?
If he had to choose between an expensive-and-less-effective method of treating what ails you and a cheap-but-effective one, what would he choose?Of course every doctor cares about having an income, but wouldn't you prefer a doctor that, if he had to choose between your health and a few extra bucks, would actually do what's best for you, not what's best for your wallet?That's what the GP is saying.
(Another analogy: consider, say, newspapers, websites, TV and so on; it's often said that we're not customers, we're the product being sold to the customers (advertisers).
We know this, and we thus realize that e.g.
TV doesn't genuinely have our best interests in mind.
Software companies - in fact, pretty much all companies - are like that, too: they don't care about YOU or your problem or how well their product will work for you, they care about getting your money.
Have you ever wondered why things like the upgrade treadmill, vendor lock-in etc.
exist, why MS Office can't properly read files created by earlier versions of itself, and so on?
This is why.
And free software does have an advantage in that regard at least.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31158496</id>
	<title>Re:Most Difficult Bug for Me</title>
	<author>arjay-tea</author>
	<datestamp>1266350340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...where a wait is never notified caused by bad error handling, which was fixed by simply renaming a file<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...'</p><p>Bad error handling is fixed by renaming a file?   Really?<br>I'd say not enough eyeballs there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...where a wait is never notified caused by bad error handling , which was fixed by simply renaming a file ...'Bad error handling is fixed by renaming a file ?
Really ? I 'd say not enough eyeballs there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...where a wait is never notified caused by bad error handling, which was fixed by simply renaming a file ...'Bad error handling is fixed by renaming a file?
Really?I'd say not enough eyeballs there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152460</id>
	<title>Re:PEBCEK is the issue...</title>
	<author>grcumb</author>
	<datestamp>1266258600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Posting this only to highlight the perfect irony of the title.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Posting this only to highlight the perfect irony of the title .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Posting this only to highlight the perfect irony of the title.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152540</id>
	<title>Did anyone ever believe it in the first place?</title>
	<author>BlueBoxSW.com</author>
	<datestamp>1266259440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm all for open source software. I could give you a dozen reasons why it's a great thing.</p><p>But does anyone REALLY believe it's bug-free because there are lots of eyeballs on it?</p><p>From the first time I heard that argument I thought it was laughable and not backed by any solid evidence.</p><p>He's attacking that argument for a simple reason: Because he can. It's a stupid argument.</p><p>And he's getting people all worked up and distracted over it.</p><p>Meanwhile, in the next room, Microsoft salespeople are convincing your boss they need to switch all your licensing to a yearly subscription model, and that there's no reason why you should actually OWN the software that you're paying all this money for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm all for open source software .
I could give you a dozen reasons why it 's a great thing.But does anyone REALLY believe it 's bug-free because there are lots of eyeballs on it ? From the first time I heard that argument I thought it was laughable and not backed by any solid evidence.He 's attacking that argument for a simple reason : Because he can .
It 's a stupid argument.And he 's getting people all worked up and distracted over it.Meanwhile , in the next room , Microsoft salespeople are convincing your boss they need to switch all your licensing to a yearly subscription model , and that there 's no reason why you should actually OWN the software that you 're paying all this money for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm all for open source software.
I could give you a dozen reasons why it's a great thing.But does anyone REALLY believe it's bug-free because there are lots of eyeballs on it?From the first time I heard that argument I thought it was laughable and not backed by any solid evidence.He's attacking that argument for a simple reason: Because he can.
It's a stupid argument.And he's getting people all worked up and distracted over it.Meanwhile, in the next room, Microsoft salespeople are convincing your boss they need to switch all your licensing to a yearly subscription model, and that there's no reason why you should actually OWN the software that you're paying all this money for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153290</id>
	<title>l4m3rx</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266312540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The way I see it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..it's just a matter of point of view... if u want to see open source as better thing - u can find arguments, if u want to do the oposite -<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....<br>But as a person who looks at the few bugtraqs every day<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...i can say that open source is way more secure<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...i dont know if it is becouse of many eyes looking over the source or not<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...but we all remember what happend when lsd-pl.net reported the DCOM bug in Windows<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....what happend ? 5-6 patches 'till M$ fixed the issue<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... what about the patches that stoped some services ?<br>So after ~10y of work on it , XP is not bugs free yet..... not even close<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... ask google<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;) btw do u remember what M$ said when the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.cn attaked google, adobe<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. ? ? Update to IE8<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...dosnt matter that<br>it's vuln<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.....<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) YEAH<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D NICE<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... even super<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...at least when i use opensource i can patch the source<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...or I can pay someone<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/if i can't do it/ to do it for me<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.....but when using prop. software I have to w8 for M$ to patch it ? What<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.....one month later ? And 'till then ?! What<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..?!? Don't use IE ?<br>p.s. i'm not sure if opensource is better or not<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...but i'm sure that from security point of view is the better choise!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The way I see it ..it 's just a matter of point of view... if u want to see open source as better thing - u can find arguments , if u want to do the oposite - ....But as a person who looks at the few bugtraqs every day ...i can say that open source is way more secure ...i dont know if it is becouse of many eyes looking over the source or not ...but we all remember what happend when lsd-pl.net reported the DCOM bug in Windows ....what happend ?
5-6 patches 'till M $ fixed the issue .... what about the patches that stoped some services ? So after ~ 10y of work on it , XP is not bugs free yet..... not even close .... ask google ; ) btw do u remember what M $ said when the .cn attaked google , adobe .. ? ?
Update to IE8 ...dosnt matter thatit 's vuln ..... : ) YEAH : D NICE : ] .... even super : ] ...at least when i use opensource i can patch the source ...or I can pay someone /if i ca n't do it/ to do it for me .....but when using prop .
software I have to w8 for M $ to patch it ?
What .....one month later ?
And 'till then ? !
What .. ? ! ?
Do n't use IE ? p.s .
i 'm not sure if opensource is better or not ...but i 'm sure that from security point of view is the better choise !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The way I see it ..it's just a matter of point of view... if u want to see open source as better thing - u can find arguments, if u want to do the oposite - ....But as a person who looks at the few bugtraqs every day ...i can say that open source is way more secure ...i dont know if it is becouse of many eyes looking over the source or not ...but we all remember what happend when lsd-pl.net reported the DCOM bug in Windows ....what happend ?
5-6 patches 'till M$ fixed the issue .... what about the patches that stoped some services ?So after ~10y of work on it , XP is not bugs free yet..... not even close .... ask google ;) btw do u remember what M$ said when the .cn attaked google, adobe .. ? ?
Update to IE8 ...dosnt matter thatit's vuln ..... :) YEAH :D NICE :] .... even super :] ...at least when i use opensource i can patch the source ...or I can pay someone /if i can't do it/ to do it for me .....but when using prop.
software I have to w8 for M$ to patch it ?
What .....one month later ?
And 'till then ?!
What ..?!?
Don't use IE ?p.s.
i'm not sure if opensource is better or not ...but i'm sure that from security point of view is the better choise!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152630</id>
	<title>Irrelevant..they are.</title>
	<author>mooneypilot</author>
	<datestamp>1266260520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Like they know anything about finding or fixing Bugs...Puuleeze.
I take anything I hear from Redmond as complete BS,
Except for news of Ballmers termination/resignation..at that point, I go ALL-IN on their stock.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like they know anything about finding or fixing Bugs...Puuleeze .
I take anything I hear from Redmond as complete BS , Except for news of Ballmers termination/resignation..at that point , I go ALL-IN on their stock .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like they know anything about finding or fixing Bugs...Puuleeze.
I take anything I hear from Redmond as complete BS,
Except for news of Ballmers termination/resignation..at that point, I go ALL-IN on their stock.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153688</id>
	<title>Isn't this the same argument</title>
	<author>bain\_online</author>
	<datestamp>1266319500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As why it should be impossible to build a very complex software in open source that is better (or at least equal in quality) than closed source teams?<br>
Do we even need to give proof to refute this?</htmltext>
<tokenext>As why it should be impossible to build a very complex software in open source that is better ( or at least equal in quality ) than closed source teams ?
Do we even need to give proof to refute this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As why it should be impossible to build a very complex software in open source that is better (or at least equal in quality) than closed source teams?
Do we even need to give proof to refute this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152268</id>
	<title>Most Difficult Bug for Me</title>
	<author>c0d3r</author>
	<datestamp>1266256680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of my most difficult bugs was fixed by simply rescheduling the time a  datamining job was to run (which was integrated in to a massive ERP system with other major components of which i had no insight).  It took at least 24 hours to test everytime i created a new build.  Essentially it was a scheduling ordering issue, where pre-processing of other processes wasn't done in time..  It took me a month to figure this one out.  Some times the bugs are outside of the scope of your own system, and the bug will probably re-arise as data grows.  I've also had some difficult threading issues where a wait is never notified caused by bad error handling, which was fixed by simply renaming a file (after 1 month of multi threaded debugging with the final session taking 3 days for one execution).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of my most difficult bugs was fixed by simply rescheduling the time a datamining job was to run ( which was integrated in to a massive ERP system with other major components of which i had no insight ) .
It took at least 24 hours to test everytime i created a new build .
Essentially it was a scheduling ordering issue , where pre-processing of other processes was n't done in time.. It took me a month to figure this one out .
Some times the bugs are outside of the scope of your own system , and the bug will probably re-arise as data grows .
I 've also had some difficult threading issues where a wait is never notified caused by bad error handling , which was fixed by simply renaming a file ( after 1 month of multi threaded debugging with the final session taking 3 days for one execution ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of my most difficult bugs was fixed by simply rescheduling the time a  datamining job was to run (which was integrated in to a massive ERP system with other major components of which i had no insight).
It took at least 24 hours to test everytime i created a new build.
Essentially it was a scheduling ordering issue, where pre-processing of other processes wasn't done in time..  It took me a month to figure this one out.
Some times the bugs are outside of the scope of your own system, and the bug will probably re-arise as data grows.
I've also had some difficult threading issues where a wait is never notified caused by bad error handling, which was fixed by simply renaming a file (after 1 month of multi threaded debugging with the final session taking 3 days for one execution).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152932</id>
	<title>Re:Choose freedom, not some $attribute</title>
	<author>ET3D</author>
	<datestamp>1266351540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More companies do choose freedom, by staying away from the GPL, which is one of the more limiting licenses around. GPL is kind of like the paparazzi following you around saying "you're free to do anything you want, just as long as you don't mind that I share it with everybody". Hmmm, actually it's like if the paparazzi would force you to take your own pictures and publish them. Anyway, that's not the kind of freedom most people want.</p><p>That's how a developer would look at it. From a user's POV, "free as in speech" is meaningless. Free like beer is something users love, but many would prefer stealing a well programmed commercial program than getting one that's already free. I'm not a big Microsoft fan (though I use Windows and develop on it), and tended to stay away from its office suite for my personal needs, but whenever I needed to do something complex at work, Microsoft Office always worked a lot more smoothly than Open Office or alternatives (which I do always try). So I don't know what you're talking about with "their software disrespects you as a user and keeps pushing the limits in dividing and taking power away from their user base". From my experience if you're looking to be productive, a well established commercial product is a good way to go, if you can afford it (or don't mind getting it illegally).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More companies do choose freedom , by staying away from the GPL , which is one of the more limiting licenses around .
GPL is kind of like the paparazzi following you around saying " you 're free to do anything you want , just as long as you do n't mind that I share it with everybody " .
Hmmm , actually it 's like if the paparazzi would force you to take your own pictures and publish them .
Anyway , that 's not the kind of freedom most people want.That 's how a developer would look at it .
From a user 's POV , " free as in speech " is meaningless .
Free like beer is something users love , but many would prefer stealing a well programmed commercial program than getting one that 's already free .
I 'm not a big Microsoft fan ( though I use Windows and develop on it ) , and tended to stay away from its office suite for my personal needs , but whenever I needed to do something complex at work , Microsoft Office always worked a lot more smoothly than Open Office or alternatives ( which I do always try ) .
So I do n't know what you 're talking about with " their software disrespects you as a user and keeps pushing the limits in dividing and taking power away from their user base " .
From my experience if you 're looking to be productive , a well established commercial product is a good way to go , if you can afford it ( or do n't mind getting it illegally ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More companies do choose freedom, by staying away from the GPL, which is one of the more limiting licenses around.
GPL is kind of like the paparazzi following you around saying "you're free to do anything you want, just as long as you don't mind that I share it with everybody".
Hmmm, actually it's like if the paparazzi would force you to take your own pictures and publish them.
Anyway, that's not the kind of freedom most people want.That's how a developer would look at it.
From a user's POV, "free as in speech" is meaningless.
Free like beer is something users love, but many would prefer stealing a well programmed commercial program than getting one that's already free.
I'm not a big Microsoft fan (though I use Windows and develop on it), and tended to stay away from its office suite for my personal needs, but whenever I needed to do something complex at work, Microsoft Office always worked a lot more smoothly than Open Office or alternatives (which I do always try).
So I don't know what you're talking about with "their software disrespects you as a user and keeps pushing the limits in dividing and taking power away from their user base".
From my experience if you're looking to be productive, a well established commercial product is a good way to go, if you can afford it (or don't mind getting it illegally).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152840</id>
	<title>Only early bugs are shallow</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1266263940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Actually, most bugs that survive initial testing are not shallow.  If they were, they'd have been caught early.
</p><p>
A key point of the article is that almost nobody in the open source world is really looking hard at old code.  An experiment was run to encourage code review, but nobody really wants to do that.  This is related to the phenomenon that many open source projects stall out at version 0.x. The basic functionality is in, the fun part has been done, and the boring grind of making the last bits work isn't getting done.
</p><p>
Some bugs are so deep the open source process can't fix them.  Search Google for "prune\_one\_dentry oops". The Linux kernel is known to crash when all free memory has been taken over as file cache, a process needs memory, and due to some lock being set, file cache space can't be released.  Bugs of this type have been reported steadily since 2004, and it's still not fixed.  It will probably take a redesign of some fragile code to fix that, and nobody wants to take that on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , most bugs that survive initial testing are not shallow .
If they were , they 'd have been caught early .
A key point of the article is that almost nobody in the open source world is really looking hard at old code .
An experiment was run to encourage code review , but nobody really wants to do that .
This is related to the phenomenon that many open source projects stall out at version 0.x .
The basic functionality is in , the fun part has been done , and the boring grind of making the last bits work is n't getting done .
Some bugs are so deep the open source process ca n't fix them .
Search Google for " prune \ _one \ _dentry oops " .
The Linux kernel is known to crash when all free memory has been taken over as file cache , a process needs memory , and due to some lock being set , file cache space ca n't be released .
Bugs of this type have been reported steadily since 2004 , and it 's still not fixed .
It will probably take a redesign of some fragile code to fix that , and nobody wants to take that on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Actually, most bugs that survive initial testing are not shallow.
If they were, they'd have been caught early.
A key point of the article is that almost nobody in the open source world is really looking hard at old code.
An experiment was run to encourage code review, but nobody really wants to do that.
This is related to the phenomenon that many open source projects stall out at version 0.x.
The basic functionality is in, the fun part has been done, and the boring grind of making the last bits work isn't getting done.
Some bugs are so deep the open source process can't fix them.
Search Google for "prune\_one\_dentry oops".
The Linux kernel is known to crash when all free memory has been taken over as file cache, a process needs memory, and due to some lock being set, file cache space can't be released.
Bugs of this type have been reported steadily since 2004, and it's still not fixed.
It will probably take a redesign of some fragile code to fix that, and nobody wants to take that on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153516</id>
	<title>Who Wants to be A Millionaire has the Answer</title>
	<author>Liambp</author>
	<datestamp>1266316200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I learned something about "Group intelligence"  from the quiz show Who Wants to be a Millionaire in which contestants are given three lifelines to help them answer difficult questions.</p><p>The weakest lifeline by far is to appeal to the wisdom of the crowd and ask the audience. This only works for the simplest question.</p><p>Phone a friend works better IF you know the right friend.</p><p>However the most powerful lifeline. The one smart players keep till last is 50:50 - randomly removing two wrong answers.</p><p>So if open source debugging is equivalent to "Ask the Audience" then closed source debugging by the specialised team of developers is "Phone a Friend". Now all we have to do is figure out what is the debugging equivalent of 50:50 and all our problems are solved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I learned something about " Group intelligence " from the quiz show Who Wants to be a Millionaire in which contestants are given three lifelines to help them answer difficult questions.The weakest lifeline by far is to appeal to the wisdom of the crowd and ask the audience .
This only works for the simplest question.Phone a friend works better IF you know the right friend.However the most powerful lifeline .
The one smart players keep till last is 50 : 50 - randomly removing two wrong answers.So if open source debugging is equivalent to " Ask the Audience " then closed source debugging by the specialised team of developers is " Phone a Friend " .
Now all we have to do is figure out what is the debugging equivalent of 50 : 50 and all our problems are solved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I learned something about "Group intelligence"  from the quiz show Who Wants to be a Millionaire in which contestants are given three lifelines to help them answer difficult questions.The weakest lifeline by far is to appeal to the wisdom of the crowd and ask the audience.
This only works for the simplest question.Phone a friend works better IF you know the right friend.However the most powerful lifeline.
The one smart players keep till last is 50:50 - randomly removing two wrong answers.So if open source debugging is equivalent to "Ask the Audience" then closed source debugging by the specialised team of developers is "Phone a Friend".
Now all we have to do is figure out what is the debugging equivalent of 50:50 and all our problems are solved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152176</id>
	<title>Yeah, right....</title>
	<author>socceroos</author>
	<datestamp>1266255600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>As we can all see, this has gone famously for Microsoft.
<br> <br>
What do they say?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...the proof is in the pudding?</htmltext>
<tokenext>As we can all see , this has gone famously for Microsoft .
What do they say ?
...the proof is in the pudding ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As we can all see, this has gone famously for Microsoft.
What do they say?
...the proof is in the pudding?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153994</id>
	<title>Re:Choose freedom, not some $attribute</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266325020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your smart-ass comment misses the point.  Mainly it's about respect for and freedom of the user, not making everything from scratch. Lock-in and obscurity are the basis for an exploitative business model that is directly responsible for a lot of what ails software users, whether they know enough to notice or not. That, just sometimes, the consequences are not so evil is no excuse.  Silly, besides-the-point metaphors are no excuse either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your smart-ass comment misses the point .
Mainly it 's about respect for and freedom of the user , not making everything from scratch .
Lock-in and obscurity are the basis for an exploitative business model that is directly responsible for a lot of what ails software users , whether they know enough to notice or not .
That , just sometimes , the consequences are not so evil is no excuse .
Silly , besides-the-point metaphors are no excuse either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your smart-ass comment misses the point.
Mainly it's about respect for and freedom of the user, not making everything from scratch.
Lock-in and obscurity are the basis for an exploitative business model that is directly responsible for a lot of what ails software users, whether they know enough to notice or not.
That, just sometimes, the consequences are not so evil is no excuse.
Silly, besides-the-point metaphors are no excuse either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153522</id>
	<title>Breaking News</title>
	<author>zeromorph</author>
	<datestamp>1266316260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Breaking News! Neat one line slogan not completely accurate! More in our special feature at eleven.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Breaking News !
Neat one line slogan not completely accurate !
More in our special feature at eleven .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Breaking News!
Neat one line slogan not completely accurate!
More in our special feature at eleven.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31164594</id>
	<title>Re:PEBCEK is the issue...</title>
	<author>ckaminski</author>
	<datestamp>1266340020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Once a program loads into protected mode, any features offer by your BIOS are pretty much gone - the Kernel is in control.  You can't count on anything - I routinely turn my click repeat rate way up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once a program loads into protected mode , any features offer by your BIOS are pretty much gone - the Kernel is in control .
You ca n't count on anything - I routinely turn my click repeat rate way up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once a program loads into protected mode, any features offer by your BIOS are pretty much gone - the Kernel is in control.
You can't count on anything - I routinely turn my click repeat rate way up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152206</id>
	<title>Choose freedom, not some $attribute</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266255840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is precisely the kind of argument you become susceptible to if you think that an attribute of software (security) is more important than your freedom. Shawn makes some good points about the technical quality of software and it's true there may not be enough eyeballs to find bugs in free software let alone hands to fix them. What Shawn would have us take from this article is that free software may not be technically superior. It's an attempt to frame the argument and shape what's people think is important in software. Unfortunately, if you care about software freedom, Microsoft's FXCop and PreFast-clean mean nothing. Their software disrespects you as a user and keeps pushing the limits in dividing and taking power away from their user base. Don't buy this line. Choose freedom first and interested parties will take care of attributes like security, ease-of-use, and compatibility over time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is precisely the kind of argument you become susceptible to if you think that an attribute of software ( security ) is more important than your freedom .
Shawn makes some good points about the technical quality of software and it 's true there may not be enough eyeballs to find bugs in free software let alone hands to fix them .
What Shawn would have us take from this article is that free software may not be technically superior .
It 's an attempt to frame the argument and shape what 's people think is important in software .
Unfortunately , if you care about software freedom , Microsoft 's FXCop and PreFast-clean mean nothing .
Their software disrespects you as a user and keeps pushing the limits in dividing and taking power away from their user base .
Do n't buy this line .
Choose freedom first and interested parties will take care of attributes like security , ease-of-use , and compatibility over time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is precisely the kind of argument you become susceptible to if you think that an attribute of software (security) is more important than your freedom.
Shawn makes some good points about the technical quality of software and it's true there may not be enough eyeballs to find bugs in free software let alone hands to fix them.
What Shawn would have us take from this article is that free software may not be technically superior.
It's an attempt to frame the argument and shape what's people think is important in software.
Unfortunately, if you care about software freedom, Microsoft's FXCop and PreFast-clean mean nothing.
Their software disrespects you as a user and keeps pushing the limits in dividing and taking power away from their user base.
Don't buy this line.
Choose freedom first and interested parties will take care of attributes like security, ease-of-use, and compatibility over time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31156640</id>
	<title>Re:Choose freedom, not some $attribute</title>
	<author>5KVGhost</author>
	<datestamp>1266343680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Choose freedom first and interested parties will take care of attributes like security, ease-of-use, and compatibility over time."</p><p>You've made a common mistake, assuming that a particular combination of open-source "freedom" and the vague concept of "technical superiority" are the most important factors in everyone's decision-tree.</p><p>If you are willing to sacrifice your time and productivity waiting for "interested parties" to smile upon you, then that's fine. That's one valid point of view, but it's silly to insist that it should be everyone's point of view.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Choose freedom first and interested parties will take care of attributes like security , ease-of-use , and compatibility over time .
" You 've made a common mistake , assuming that a particular combination of open-source " freedom " and the vague concept of " technical superiority " are the most important factors in everyone 's decision-tree.If you are willing to sacrifice your time and productivity waiting for " interested parties " to smile upon you , then that 's fine .
That 's one valid point of view , but it 's silly to insist that it should be everyone 's point of view .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Choose freedom first and interested parties will take care of attributes like security, ease-of-use, and compatibility over time.
"You've made a common mistake, assuming that a particular combination of open-source "freedom" and the vague concept of "technical superiority" are the most important factors in everyone's decision-tree.If you are willing to sacrifice your time and productivity waiting for "interested parties" to smile upon you, then that's fine.
That's one valid point of view, but it's silly to insist that it should be everyone's point of view.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154740</id>
	<title>Re:Choose freedom, not some $attribute</title>
	<author>Shrike82</author>
	<datestamp>1266333420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not sure I understand your post at all, and while I think I understand the point you're trying to make, I'm still partially guessing. Nonetheless I'll plough on based on my assumptions.<br> <br>

You draw a false analogy between software development and the scientific method. They are not even remotely similar. You also declare that, or at least torture a metaphor in which, proprietary software is like "snake oil". Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the snake oil argument woud require that proprietary software didn't deliver on it's promises, was some kind of scam or hoax and generally was marketted by liars and thieves? Right? Last time I checked I could open files in my proprietary software operating system, check e-mail with my proprietary software mailing program, and movies played on my proprietary software media player. That's all I want from them, that's what they promised and that's what they delivered. Care to clarify your metaphor?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure I understand your post at all , and while I think I understand the point you 're trying to make , I 'm still partially guessing .
Nonetheless I 'll plough on based on my assumptions .
You draw a false analogy between software development and the scientific method .
They are not even remotely similar .
You also declare that , or at least torture a metaphor in which , proprietary software is like " snake oil " .
Forgive me if I 'm wrong , but the snake oil argument woud require that proprietary software did n't deliver on it 's promises , was some kind of scam or hoax and generally was marketted by liars and thieves ?
Right ? Last time I checked I could open files in my proprietary software operating system , check e-mail with my proprietary software mailing program , and movies played on my proprietary software media player .
That 's all I want from them , that 's what they promised and that 's what they delivered .
Care to clarify your metaphor ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure I understand your post at all, and while I think I understand the point you're trying to make, I'm still partially guessing.
Nonetheless I'll plough on based on my assumptions.
You draw a false analogy between software development and the scientific method.
They are not even remotely similar.
You also declare that, or at least torture a metaphor in which, proprietary software is like "snake oil".
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the snake oil argument woud require that proprietary software didn't deliver on it's promises, was some kind of scam or hoax and generally was marketted by liars and thieves?
Right? Last time I checked I could open files in my proprietary software operating system, check e-mail with my proprietary software mailing program, and movies played on my proprietary software media player.
That's all I want from them, that's what they promised and that's what they delivered.
Care to clarify your metaphor?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31158796</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, right....</title>
	<author>Tacvek</author>
	<datestamp>1266351420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Windows 7 is pretty good, especially relative to previous offerings. It is rather solid, and because of the requirement for all signed drivers the likelyhood of kernel space problems has diminished significantly.</p><p>But I've noticed quite a few minor bugs, many of which would be completely overlooked by regular users, and most of the rest would be noticed and then ignored.</p><p>Take for exampl3e network naming. When one connects to a wireless network, windows names it after the SSID. That is fine and correct. If you then later connect to the same network via a wire, Windows will recognize the network somehow, and give the wired network the same name as the wireless network. That is wrong. IF the ssid name was 'myname-wireless', I definitely don't want Windows to call the wired network 'myname-wireless'. Also it does not work well in the case of one network with multiple different SSIDs which may indicate network zones, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows 7 is pretty good , especially relative to previous offerings .
It is rather solid , and because of the requirement for all signed drivers the likelyhood of kernel space problems has diminished significantly.But I 've noticed quite a few minor bugs , many of which would be completely overlooked by regular users , and most of the rest would be noticed and then ignored.Take for exampl3e network naming .
When one connects to a wireless network , windows names it after the SSID .
That is fine and correct .
If you then later connect to the same network via a wire , Windows will recognize the network somehow , and give the wired network the same name as the wireless network .
That is wrong .
IF the ssid name was 'myname-wireless ' , I definitely do n't want Windows to call the wired network 'myname-wireless' .
Also it does not work well in the case of one network with multiple different SSIDs which may indicate network zones , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows 7 is pretty good, especially relative to previous offerings.
It is rather solid, and because of the requirement for all signed drivers the likelyhood of kernel space problems has diminished significantly.But I've noticed quite a few minor bugs, many of which would be completely overlooked by regular users, and most of the rest would be noticed and then ignored.Take for exampl3e network naming.
When one connects to a wireless network, windows names it after the SSID.
That is fine and correct.
If you then later connect to the same network via a wire, Windows will recognize the network somehow, and give the wired network the same name as the wireless network.
That is wrong.
IF the ssid name was 'myname-wireless', I definitely don't want Windows to call the wired network 'myname-wireless'.
Also it does not work well in the case of one network with multiple different SSIDs which may indicate network zones, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152180</id>
	<title>Insufficient?</title>
	<author>Trevin</author>
	<datestamp>1266255660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>... and integrate security into the day-to-day activities.</p></div></blockquote><p>Sounds like he's selling something.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... and integrate security into the day-to-day activities.Sounds like he 's selling something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and integrate security into the day-to-day activities.Sounds like he's selling something.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153306</id>
	<title>So his point is...</title>
	<author>Lord Bitman</author>
	<datestamp>1266312720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"You see old friend. I've brought more auditers than you did."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" You see old friend .
I 've brought more auditers than you did .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"You see old friend.
I've brought more auditers than you did.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31155214</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, right....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266336300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is what some say.  Please explain it as it makes no sense.</p><p>The correct saying is: "The proof of the pudding... [is in the eating]".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is what some say .
Please explain it as it makes no sense.The correct saying is : " The proof of the pudding... [ is in the eating ] " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is what some say.
Please explain it as it makes no sense.The correct saying is: "The proof of the pudding... [is in the eating]".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153726</id>
	<title>Re:Choose freedom, not some $attribute</title>
	<author>RockWolf</author>
	<datestamp>1266320220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>  I know which one I trust.</i> </p><p>

I know what you mean. I only drive cars that have been hand-assembled by individuals working out of their backyards. Similarly, I wouldn't dream of visiting a doctor who didn't make all his own tools or who sent me to an apothecarist who wasn't personally assembling all his medicine from locally-sourced ingredients.</p></div><p>You're being snarky, but with the new <a href="http://www.local-motors.com/rf" title="local-motors.com" rel="nofollow">Rally Fighter</a> [local-motors.com] you CAN drive an open-source/crowd-sourced car.</p><p>For the record, I do realise that using a off-the-shelf components isn't open-source, but a true open-source car would make a model-T look like a supercar, be perpetually v0.5.467.88a with a bug list longer than Toyota has at the moment, and most people would still go and buy a corolla because that's what they're used to.</p><p>./Rockwolf</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know which one I trust .
I know what you mean .
I only drive cars that have been hand-assembled by individuals working out of their backyards .
Similarly , I would n't dream of visiting a doctor who did n't make all his own tools or who sent me to an apothecarist who was n't personally assembling all his medicine from locally-sourced ingredients.You 're being snarky , but with the new Rally Fighter [ local-motors.com ] you CAN drive an open-source/crowd-sourced car.For the record , I do realise that using a off-the-shelf components is n't open-source , but a true open-source car would make a model-T look like a supercar , be perpetually v0.5.467.88a with a bug list longer than Toyota has at the moment , and most people would still go and buy a corolla because that 's what they 're used to../Rockwolf</tokentext>
<sentencetext>   I know which one I trust.
I know what you mean.
I only drive cars that have been hand-assembled by individuals working out of their backyards.
Similarly, I wouldn't dream of visiting a doctor who didn't make all his own tools or who sent me to an apothecarist who wasn't personally assembling all his medicine from locally-sourced ingredients.You're being snarky, but with the new Rally Fighter [local-motors.com] you CAN drive an open-source/crowd-sourced car.For the record, I do realise that using a off-the-shelf components isn't open-source, but a true open-source car would make a model-T look like a supercar, be perpetually v0.5.467.88a with a bug list longer than Toyota has at the moment, and most people would still go and buy a corolla because that's what they're used to../Rockwolf
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153888</id>
	<title>Re:Choose freedom, not some $attribute</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266323040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nonono, you missed the barn, from inside.</p><p>You'd trust industry where it's necessary to sell just a bit better tools than you sold last time, but not good enough that you can sell a bit better ones next year too?<br>I trust the people more who make things as good as they can. Especially when they have really proved that, yes they can! FOSS isn't just some hobbyist thing, Intel, Google, IBM... They are competing pretty well with the world's richest man and his business I'd say.</p><p>You know, If I had the proof that those backyard mechanics made better cars, yes I would drive them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nonono , you missed the barn , from inside.You 'd trust industry where it 's necessary to sell just a bit better tools than you sold last time , but not good enough that you can sell a bit better ones next year too ? I trust the people more who make things as good as they can .
Especially when they have really proved that , yes they can !
FOSS is n't just some hobbyist thing , Intel , Google , IBM... They are competing pretty well with the world 's richest man and his business I 'd say.You know , If I had the proof that those backyard mechanics made better cars , yes I would drive them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nonono, you missed the barn, from inside.You'd trust industry where it's necessary to sell just a bit better tools than you sold last time, but not good enough that you can sell a bit better ones next year too?I trust the people more who make things as good as they can.
Especially when they have really proved that, yes they can!
FOSS isn't just some hobbyist thing, Intel, Google, IBM... They are competing pretty well with the world's richest man and his business I'd say.You know, If I had the proof that those backyard mechanics made better cars, yes I would drive them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31156526</id>
	<title>Fail</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1266343260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fail in the first paragraph. The million monkeys argument is speaking of random output. The many eyeballs argument is speaking of skilled actors. By calling them the same he is implicitly insulting each and every person who does any sort of security review on Free software.</p><p>Next point, he wants to reduce the problem to number of hours spent. I would argue that independent security review hours are worth a lot more than hours spent by people who "know how it's supposed to work" for the same reason you should always have someone else proof-read your paper. If you've already drunk the kool-aid, you won't see the flaws.</p><p>He is correct that Free software does not tend to get a compartmentalized review. That is, there are few if any who ONLY review code. Instead, developer A reviews developer B's code while understanding the changes so that he can continue to do his work. At some point, developer C will review A and B as he gets up to speed to do what he wants to do. A and B will end up reviewing that work should the patch be submitted. It is certainly a less formal process.</p><p>The biggest advantage to the Free software method is that there is no company line. Nobody can demand silence on a security problem that would screw up the release cycle with an empty promise to fix it later. Nobody can slip in an update to fix (or paper over) a horrific undetected flaw in a patch to add a printer driver. Anyone who wants to know about it will know about it.</p><p>Interestingly, he sort of touches on that at the end. When DHS decided to have Coventry do a 3rd party audit, there was no need to gain special permission or special access to anything. It was all there ready for them. Here we have proof that the ability of anybody at any time to do whatever analysis they want is not merely theoretical. It happens in the real world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fail in the first paragraph .
The million monkeys argument is speaking of random output .
The many eyeballs argument is speaking of skilled actors .
By calling them the same he is implicitly insulting each and every person who does any sort of security review on Free software.Next point , he wants to reduce the problem to number of hours spent .
I would argue that independent security review hours are worth a lot more than hours spent by people who " know how it 's supposed to work " for the same reason you should always have someone else proof-read your paper .
If you 've already drunk the kool-aid , you wo n't see the flaws.He is correct that Free software does not tend to get a compartmentalized review .
That is , there are few if any who ONLY review code .
Instead , developer A reviews developer B 's code while understanding the changes so that he can continue to do his work .
At some point , developer C will review A and B as he gets up to speed to do what he wants to do .
A and B will end up reviewing that work should the patch be submitted .
It is certainly a less formal process.The biggest advantage to the Free software method is that there is no company line .
Nobody can demand silence on a security problem that would screw up the release cycle with an empty promise to fix it later .
Nobody can slip in an update to fix ( or paper over ) a horrific undetected flaw in a patch to add a printer driver .
Anyone who wants to know about it will know about it.Interestingly , he sort of touches on that at the end .
When DHS decided to have Coventry do a 3rd party audit , there was no need to gain special permission or special access to anything .
It was all there ready for them .
Here we have proof that the ability of anybody at any time to do whatever analysis they want is not merely theoretical .
It happens in the real world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fail in the first paragraph.
The million monkeys argument is speaking of random output.
The many eyeballs argument is speaking of skilled actors.
By calling them the same he is implicitly insulting each and every person who does any sort of security review on Free software.Next point, he wants to reduce the problem to number of hours spent.
I would argue that independent security review hours are worth a lot more than hours spent by people who "know how it's supposed to work" for the same reason you should always have someone else proof-read your paper.
If you've already drunk the kool-aid, you won't see the flaws.He is correct that Free software does not tend to get a compartmentalized review.
That is, there are few if any who ONLY review code.
Instead, developer A reviews developer B's code while understanding the changes so that he can continue to do his work.
At some point, developer C will review A and B as he gets up to speed to do what he wants to do.
A and B will end up reviewing that work should the patch be submitted.
It is certainly a less formal process.The biggest advantage to the Free software method is that there is no company line.
Nobody can demand silence on a security problem that would screw up the release cycle with an empty promise to fix it later.
Nobody can slip in an update to fix (or paper over) a horrific undetected flaw in a patch to add a printer driver.
Anyone who wants to know about it will know about it.Interestingly, he sort of touches on that at the end.
When DHS decided to have Coventry do a 3rd party audit, there was no need to gain special permission or special access to anything.
It was all there ready for them.
Here we have proof that the ability of anybody at any time to do whatever analysis they want is not merely theoretical.
It happens in the real world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153326</id>
	<title>What you ship is not the whole story</title>
	<author>sictransitgloriacfa</author>
	<datestamp>1266313020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, he makes some good points. Code review is indeed difficult, requires good skills, and is not done by many people in the free software community (the OpenBSD development team being a notable exception). Good software engineering methodology is crucial, certainly.
<br> <br>
He concludes that Microsoft ends up shipping fewer vulnerabilities than anyone else. Is this true? Well, with the obvious exception of OpenBSD, it might be; but that's not the whole story. What developers do when a vulnerability is found is pretty important, too. Probably even more important.
<br> <br>
Not long ago, a serious vulnerability was discovered in several versions of IE. Turns out <a href="http://threatpost.com/en\_us/blogs/microsoft-knew-ie-zero-day-flaw-september-012110" title="threatpost.com" rel="nofollow">Microsoft had known about it for several months</a> [threatpost.com]. So, naturally, they had a patch all ready and tested before it <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/01/16/029201" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">became a problem</a> [slashdot.org] - right? Well, no. Instead, they <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/01/18/1343250" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">urged users to upgrade to IE8</a> [slashdot.org]. The bug didn't get patched until <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/01/21/2135226" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">almost a week after exploits were seen</a> [slashdot.org].
<br> <br>
For all their professionalism and expertise, Microsoft developers labor under a severe handicap: they have to work on what Microsoft managers tell them to work on. They may think that a given bug is urgent and should be patched right away; but at the end of the day, the priorities are set by people who are focused on the bottom line, and those people know that nothing much is going to happen to Microsoft if a vulnerability is left open for a week or two. Every year, people in the Linux community confidently assert that <b>this</b> is the year of the Linux desktop; and every year, they're proven wrong. Too many people are locked into Microsoft's proprietary formats, and have too much time invested in learning to use Windows, to switch easily. And that's not going to change anytime soon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , he makes some good points .
Code review is indeed difficult , requires good skills , and is not done by many people in the free software community ( the OpenBSD development team being a notable exception ) .
Good software engineering methodology is crucial , certainly .
He concludes that Microsoft ends up shipping fewer vulnerabilities than anyone else .
Is this true ?
Well , with the obvious exception of OpenBSD , it might be ; but that 's not the whole story .
What developers do when a vulnerability is found is pretty important , too .
Probably even more important .
Not long ago , a serious vulnerability was discovered in several versions of IE .
Turns out Microsoft had known about it for several months [ threatpost.com ] .
So , naturally , they had a patch all ready and tested before it became a problem [ slashdot.org ] - right ?
Well , no .
Instead , they urged users to upgrade to IE8 [ slashdot.org ] .
The bug did n't get patched until almost a week after exploits were seen [ slashdot.org ] .
For all their professionalism and expertise , Microsoft developers labor under a severe handicap : they have to work on what Microsoft managers tell them to work on .
They may think that a given bug is urgent and should be patched right away ; but at the end of the day , the priorities are set by people who are focused on the bottom line , and those people know that nothing much is going to happen to Microsoft if a vulnerability is left open for a week or two .
Every year , people in the Linux community confidently assert that this is the year of the Linux desktop ; and every year , they 're proven wrong .
Too many people are locked into Microsoft 's proprietary formats , and have too much time invested in learning to use Windows , to switch easily .
And that 's not going to change anytime soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, he makes some good points.
Code review is indeed difficult, requires good skills, and is not done by many people in the free software community (the OpenBSD development team being a notable exception).
Good software engineering methodology is crucial, certainly.
He concludes that Microsoft ends up shipping fewer vulnerabilities than anyone else.
Is this true?
Well, with the obvious exception of OpenBSD, it might be; but that's not the whole story.
What developers do when a vulnerability is found is pretty important, too.
Probably even more important.
Not long ago, a serious vulnerability was discovered in several versions of IE.
Turns out Microsoft had known about it for several months [threatpost.com].
So, naturally, they had a patch all ready and tested before it became a problem [slashdot.org] - right?
Well, no.
Instead, they urged users to upgrade to IE8 [slashdot.org].
The bug didn't get patched until almost a week after exploits were seen [slashdot.org].
For all their professionalism and expertise, Microsoft developers labor under a severe handicap: they have to work on what Microsoft managers tell them to work on.
They may think that a given bug is urgent and should be patched right away; but at the end of the day, the priorities are set by people who are focused on the bottom line, and those people know that nothing much is going to happen to Microsoft if a vulnerability is left open for a week or two.
Every year, people in the Linux community confidently assert that this is the year of the Linux desktop; and every year, they're proven wrong.
Too many people are locked into Microsoft's proprietary formats, and have too much time invested in learning to use Windows, to switch easily.
And that's not going to change anytime soon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152700</id>
	<title>two words for you</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266261240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>kernel debugger</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>kernel debugger</tokentext>
<sentencetext>kernel debugger</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154954</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, right....</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1266334800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To play devil's advocate, there is the issue that Microsoft products have 10 times the "eyes" looking for security vulnerabilities than Linux-based products do. They also tend to have more features included.</p><p>And frankly, the proof *is* in the pudding. Windows 7 is an excellent product, and I've yet to run into a single bug in it. That's not to say there are no bugs, just that I haven't experienced any. So far, it's running far better than *any* Linux distro I've ever tried-- for one thing, it knows what to do with my Tablet PC hardware! (How to use a pen, and how to sleep/suspend.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To play devil 's advocate , there is the issue that Microsoft products have 10 times the " eyes " looking for security vulnerabilities than Linux-based products do .
They also tend to have more features included.And frankly , the proof * is * in the pudding .
Windows 7 is an excellent product , and I 've yet to run into a single bug in it .
That 's not to say there are no bugs , just that I have n't experienced any .
So far , it 's running far better than * any * Linux distro I 've ever tried-- for one thing , it knows what to do with my Tablet PC hardware !
( How to use a pen , and how to sleep/suspend .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To play devil's advocate, there is the issue that Microsoft products have 10 times the "eyes" looking for security vulnerabilities than Linux-based products do.
They also tend to have more features included.And frankly, the proof *is* in the pudding.
Windows 7 is an excellent product, and I've yet to run into a single bug in it.
That's not to say there are no bugs, just that I haven't experienced any.
So far, it's running far better than *any* Linux distro I've ever tried-- for one thing, it knows what to do with my Tablet PC hardware!
(How to use a pen, and how to sleep/suspend.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154706</id>
	<title>why don't you</title>
	<author>pydev</author>
	<datestamp>1266333120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mr. Microsoft Program Manager, here's a piece of advice for you: Windows would be a lot more secure and a lot easier and more pleasant to use if you fixed your shallow bugs first.  Trust me, there are so many of them, you'll be busy for years to come.  Once you have those under control, they talk to us about deep bugs and program correctness and what Linux can do better, OK?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mr. Microsoft Program Manager , here 's a piece of advice for you : Windows would be a lot more secure and a lot easier and more pleasant to use if you fixed your shallow bugs first .
Trust me , there are so many of them , you 'll be busy for years to come .
Once you have those under control , they talk to us about deep bugs and program correctness and what Linux can do better , OK ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mr. Microsoft Program Manager, here's a piece of advice for you: Windows would be a lot more secure and a lot easier and more pleasant to use if you fixed your shallow bugs first.
Trust me, there are so many of them, you'll be busy for years to come.
Once you have those under control, they talk to us about deep bugs and program correctness and what Linux can do better, OK?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152922</id>
	<title>Re:Code fixes</title>
	<author>WeatherGod</author>
	<datestamp>1266351420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree whole-heartedly and this is the primary advantage of open-source software.  The "many eyes" are not necessarily developers, but users who aren't afraid to get their hands dirty.  There have been a number of bugs I have encountered that would have been considered minor or inconsequential by most others, but were important for me. I then figure out what is wrong and send a patch to the developer. Now, everyone can enjoy a slightly more "hassle-free" software.</p><p>The same bugs in closed-source software would often be ignored and I would be stuck without a solution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree whole-heartedly and this is the primary advantage of open-source software .
The " many eyes " are not necessarily developers , but users who are n't afraid to get their hands dirty .
There have been a number of bugs I have encountered that would have been considered minor or inconsequential by most others , but were important for me .
I then figure out what is wrong and send a patch to the developer .
Now , everyone can enjoy a slightly more " hassle-free " software.The same bugs in closed-source software would often be ignored and I would be stuck without a solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree whole-heartedly and this is the primary advantage of open-source software.
The "many eyes" are not necessarily developers, but users who aren't afraid to get their hands dirty.
There have been a number of bugs I have encountered that would have been considered minor or inconsequential by most others, but were important for me.
I then figure out what is wrong and send a patch to the developer.
Now, everyone can enjoy a slightly more "hassle-free" software.The same bugs in closed-source software would often be ignored and I would be stuck without a solution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153248</id>
	<title>The Tortoise and the Hare</title>
	<author>SplashMyBandit</author>
	<datestamp>1266312000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is a famous fable (by Aesop) about a tortoise and a hare racing. I don't think Open Source is better because of more eyeballs at any instant, I believe it is better because it is examined more often over a much longer period of time (in the same way the tortoise beats the hare in the fabled race). This is actually the same strategy Microsoft use against competitors. Even if their first releases are substandard compared to the competition they add features with each release (surviving because of their cash cows in other areas, when those products would have failed if they were any other company). The same goes for the GNU tools and Linux. Even if other O/Ss developed features faster they couldn't afford to keep adding them at the same incremental rate because they used traditional company economics to rapidly produce their product - but cannot continue to invest at that same rate. GCC has outlived what were initial better competitor compilers in the much same way that Microsoft's tools have. Although due to corporate necessities Microsoft must keep changing direction every few years in order to keep people buying new stuff. Open Source does not need to do this so leverages all its old 'products' which allows it to get further along the exponential decay curve of defects fixed/remaining. It is *more, integrated time* on the core Open Source products that make them superior - something Microsoft can't do as it must change it's direction every three to five years in tooling and technology to make customers pay again and again or else it's cash streams will stagnate (fatal for a company relying on growth-obsessed share investors).<p>

To me the most appropriate word for Open Source compared to commercial software is *inexorable*. Open Source is the relentless glacier (ok, Borg for those of you who need to get out more) that grinds all in its path. Even worse than a static Borg, Open Source is snowballing through the network effect. Even the latest and greatest cellphones are Open Source and companies are scrambling to adopt it in devices and their corporate data centers. Microsoft can't defeat Open Source due to the different set of economics at work. It is simply a matter of time before Microsoft cannot offer enough new features to make paying for it more worthwhile than using a free equivalent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a famous fable ( by Aesop ) about a tortoise and a hare racing .
I do n't think Open Source is better because of more eyeballs at any instant , I believe it is better because it is examined more often over a much longer period of time ( in the same way the tortoise beats the hare in the fabled race ) .
This is actually the same strategy Microsoft use against competitors .
Even if their first releases are substandard compared to the competition they add features with each release ( surviving because of their cash cows in other areas , when those products would have failed if they were any other company ) .
The same goes for the GNU tools and Linux .
Even if other O/Ss developed features faster they could n't afford to keep adding them at the same incremental rate because they used traditional company economics to rapidly produce their product - but can not continue to invest at that same rate .
GCC has outlived what were initial better competitor compilers in the much same way that Microsoft 's tools have .
Although due to corporate necessities Microsoft must keep changing direction every few years in order to keep people buying new stuff .
Open Source does not need to do this so leverages all its old 'products ' which allows it to get further along the exponential decay curve of defects fixed/remaining .
It is * more , integrated time * on the core Open Source products that make them superior - something Microsoft ca n't do as it must change it 's direction every three to five years in tooling and technology to make customers pay again and again or else it 's cash streams will stagnate ( fatal for a company relying on growth-obsessed share investors ) .
To me the most appropriate word for Open Source compared to commercial software is * inexorable * .
Open Source is the relentless glacier ( ok , Borg for those of you who need to get out more ) that grinds all in its path .
Even worse than a static Borg , Open Source is snowballing through the network effect .
Even the latest and greatest cellphones are Open Source and companies are scrambling to adopt it in devices and their corporate data centers .
Microsoft ca n't defeat Open Source due to the different set of economics at work .
It is simply a matter of time before Microsoft can not offer enough new features to make paying for it more worthwhile than using a free equivalent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a famous fable (by Aesop) about a tortoise and a hare racing.
I don't think Open Source is better because of more eyeballs at any instant, I believe it is better because it is examined more often over a much longer period of time (in the same way the tortoise beats the hare in the fabled race).
This is actually the same strategy Microsoft use against competitors.
Even if their first releases are substandard compared to the competition they add features with each release (surviving because of their cash cows in other areas, when those products would have failed if they were any other company).
The same goes for the GNU tools and Linux.
Even if other O/Ss developed features faster they couldn't afford to keep adding them at the same incremental rate because they used traditional company economics to rapidly produce their product - but cannot continue to invest at that same rate.
GCC has outlived what were initial better competitor compilers in the much same way that Microsoft's tools have.
Although due to corporate necessities Microsoft must keep changing direction every few years in order to keep people buying new stuff.
Open Source does not need to do this so leverages all its old 'products' which allows it to get further along the exponential decay curve of defects fixed/remaining.
It is *more, integrated time* on the core Open Source products that make them superior - something Microsoft can't do as it must change it's direction every three to five years in tooling and technology to make customers pay again and again or else it's cash streams will stagnate (fatal for a company relying on growth-obsessed share investors).
To me the most appropriate word for Open Source compared to commercial software is *inexorable*.
Open Source is the relentless glacier (ok, Borg for those of you who need to get out more) that grinds all in its path.
Even worse than a static Borg, Open Source is snowballing through the network effect.
Even the latest and greatest cellphones are Open Source and companies are scrambling to adopt it in devices and their corporate data centers.
Microsoft can't defeat Open Source due to the different set of economics at work.
It is simply a matter of time before Microsoft cannot offer enough new features to make paying for it more worthwhile than using a free equivalent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31157366</id>
	<title>Simple answer is no</title>
	<author>Tired and Emotional</author>
	<datestamp>1266346020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can "pump" the difficulty of finding a bug arbitarilly. Make a bug that only happens in an illegal state that can only be entered because of a second bug. If you like you can hide one of these bugs in the compiler. Repeat until blue in the face.
<p>
In practice, even difficult bugs are usually only second order. Plus disciplined programming using strongly typed languages helps a lot. So one could perhaps claim that "all bugs should be shallow" and that any failure to be shallow wis in fact a tools failure.
</p><p>
The other fly in this ointment is that a lot of bugs happen because of incomplete specifications. Before you can find the bug you have to first recognize that the spec is incomplete. For new code, there may be no person who can recognize that. Of course you can quibble the hard ones in this category away by relabelling them "feature requests" but some of them result from building in constraints that are inessential to solving the problem at hand, and those are really bugs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can " pump " the difficulty of finding a bug arbitarilly .
Make a bug that only happens in an illegal state that can only be entered because of a second bug .
If you like you can hide one of these bugs in the compiler .
Repeat until blue in the face .
In practice , even difficult bugs are usually only second order .
Plus disciplined programming using strongly typed languages helps a lot .
So one could perhaps claim that " all bugs should be shallow " and that any failure to be shallow wis in fact a tools failure .
The other fly in this ointment is that a lot of bugs happen because of incomplete specifications .
Before you can find the bug you have to first recognize that the spec is incomplete .
For new code , there may be no person who can recognize that .
Of course you can quibble the hard ones in this category away by relabelling them " feature requests " but some of them result from building in constraints that are inessential to solving the problem at hand , and those are really bugs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can "pump" the difficulty of finding a bug arbitarilly.
Make a bug that only happens in an illegal state that can only be entered because of a second bug.
If you like you can hide one of these bugs in the compiler.
Repeat until blue in the face.
In practice, even difficult bugs are usually only second order.
Plus disciplined programming using strongly typed languages helps a lot.
So one could perhaps claim that "all bugs should be shallow" and that any failure to be shallow wis in fact a tools failure.
The other fly in this ointment is that a lot of bugs happen because of incomplete specifications.
Before you can find the bug you have to first recognize that the spec is incomplete.
For new code, there may be no person who can recognize that.
Of course you can quibble the hard ones in this category away by relabelling them "feature requests" but some of them result from building in constraints that are inessential to solving the problem at hand, and those are really bugs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153076</id>
	<title>The upside-down pyramid</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1266353100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Getting software right is very, very difficult.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Code review alone is not sufficient. Testing is not sufficient. Tools are not sufficient. Features are not sufficient. None of the things we do in isolation are sufficient. To get software truly correct, especially to get it secure, you have to address all phases of the software development lifecycle, and integrate security into the day-to-day activities."</p></div><p>Well, maybe if you started out with a language that was properly designed to guarantee certain qualities (like Haskell), instead of the tar pit that is C/C++, you wouldn&rsquo;t have to do all that magic to guarantee proper code.</p><p>But oh, it&rsquo;s so much work to use <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quickcheck" title="wikipedia.org">QuickCheck</a> [wikipedia.org] to guarantee that the software will do what it should.<br>Yeah, so you rather take even more time to write the tests and do all that magic later, and still not have a 100\% guarantee.<br>Way to go...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Getting software right is very , very difficult .
... Code review alone is not sufficient .
Testing is not sufficient .
Tools are not sufficient .
Features are not sufficient .
None of the things we do in isolation are sufficient .
To get software truly correct , especially to get it secure , you have to address all phases of the software development lifecycle , and integrate security into the day-to-day activities .
" Well , maybe if you started out with a language that was properly designed to guarantee certain qualities ( like Haskell ) , instead of the tar pit that is C/C + + , you wouldn    t have to do all that magic to guarantee proper code.But oh , it    s so much work to use QuickCheck [ wikipedia.org ] to guarantee that the software will do what it should.Yeah , so you rather take even more time to write the tests and do all that magic later , and still not have a 100 \ % guarantee.Way to go.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Getting software right is very, very difficult.
... Code review alone is not sufficient.
Testing is not sufficient.
Tools are not sufficient.
Features are not sufficient.
None of the things we do in isolation are sufficient.
To get software truly correct, especially to get it secure, you have to address all phases of the software development lifecycle, and integrate security into the day-to-day activities.
"Well, maybe if you started out with a language that was properly designed to guarantee certain qualities (like Haskell), instead of the tar pit that is C/C++, you wouldn’t have to do all that magic to guarantee proper code.But oh, it’s so much work to use QuickCheck [wikipedia.org] to guarantee that the software will do what it should.Yeah, so you rather take even more time to write the tests and do all that magic later, and still not have a 100\% guarantee.Way to go...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31158026</id>
	<title>Sarndonix as an example!?</title>
	<author>rokkaku</author>
	<datestamp>1266348600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's see, the guy builds a tool (Sardonix) to help with code review.  Nobody wants to use it.  Clearly this means that Open Source enthusiasts aren't willing to do code review.  It couldn't be something simpler, like, say, the Sardonix model not working or the tool sucking.  It's clearly the fault of the users.</p><p>Yeesh, that's the kind of game-winning strategy that'll keep bringing in those DARPA grants (again, I only know what I read in the article; it may well be that the Sardonix folks *did* assume that they needed to change their approach and the author of this piece is just blowing smoke).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's see , the guy builds a tool ( Sardonix ) to help with code review .
Nobody wants to use it .
Clearly this means that Open Source enthusiasts are n't willing to do code review .
It could n't be something simpler , like , say , the Sardonix model not working or the tool sucking .
It 's clearly the fault of the users.Yeesh , that 's the kind of game-winning strategy that 'll keep bringing in those DARPA grants ( again , I only know what I read in the article ; it may well be that the Sardonix folks * did * assume that they needed to change their approach and the author of this piece is just blowing smoke ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's see, the guy builds a tool (Sardonix) to help with code review.
Nobody wants to use it.
Clearly this means that Open Source enthusiasts aren't willing to do code review.
It couldn't be something simpler, like, say, the Sardonix model not working or the tool sucking.
It's clearly the fault of the users.Yeesh, that's the kind of game-winning strategy that'll keep bringing in those DARPA grants (again, I only know what I read in the article; it may well be that the Sardonix folks *did* assume that they needed to change their approach and the author of this piece is just blowing smoke).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152942</id>
	<title>Perfect code may not be perfect..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266351720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Air France went into the ocean. THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE CODE!!!</p><p>What was in error was the philosophy the code was written by.</p><p>A philosophy that disallowed human intervention.  Disallowed for human handling of exception.</p><p>A philosophy that put machine over man.</p><p>Don't bow down to the stone image of the beast of man, for this beast is error prone and the image of this beast can be no better, even in perfection of an image.</p><p>computers are made of stone, mineral, metals, etc.. and the image is of thought processes.</p><p>no need for religion in this realization.</p><p>Open source allows for human interaction in its fundamental philosophy, where we all can make or contribute to correction and refinement.</p><p>Another example of perfect code and failure was the newly installed 911 service in Atlanta, for the 1996 Olympics. A system that required an address to be entered before it would transmit the call to the field.</p><p>Were was the failure here? Failure to give the Bicentennial park an address? Or expecting all places of crime have been given an address?<br>There was nothing wrong with the code of the software but in the design philosophy of the software.</p><p>in other words there was no code to correct, without first realizing the philosophy the code was based on was what was in error.</p><p>Microsoft is by far, practicing a philosophy of being successful by entrapment of its customers, making people need Microsoft software.<br>And a large part of how it does this is by being Windows, where you can see where you want to go, but you can't get there by yourself.</p><p>That's not the way open source software works. And it is open source software pressure that gives MS motive to improve its products.</p><p>And MS is biting the hand that is keeping it from being consumer to much of a fat lazy corporate consumer entrapment marketing firm, of which it apparent wants to be.<br>And we have seen and continue to see legal courtroom proof of MS's intent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Air France went into the ocean .
THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE CODE ! !
! What was in error was the philosophy the code was written by.A philosophy that disallowed human intervention .
Disallowed for human handling of exception.A philosophy that put machine over man.Do n't bow down to the stone image of the beast of man , for this beast is error prone and the image of this beast can be no better , even in perfection of an image.computers are made of stone , mineral , metals , etc.. and the image is of thought processes.no need for religion in this realization.Open source allows for human interaction in its fundamental philosophy , where we all can make or contribute to correction and refinement.Another example of perfect code and failure was the newly installed 911 service in Atlanta , for the 1996 Olympics .
A system that required an address to be entered before it would transmit the call to the field.Were was the failure here ?
Failure to give the Bicentennial park an address ?
Or expecting all places of crime have been given an address ? There was nothing wrong with the code of the software but in the design philosophy of the software.in other words there was no code to correct , without first realizing the philosophy the code was based on was what was in error.Microsoft is by far , practicing a philosophy of being successful by entrapment of its customers , making people need Microsoft software.And a large part of how it does this is by being Windows , where you can see where you want to go , but you ca n't get there by yourself.That 's not the way open source software works .
And it is open source software pressure that gives MS motive to improve its products.And MS is biting the hand that is keeping it from being consumer to much of a fat lazy corporate consumer entrapment marketing firm , of which it apparent wants to be.And we have seen and continue to see legal courtroom proof of MS 's intent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Air France went into the ocean.
THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE CODE!!
!What was in error was the philosophy the code was written by.A philosophy that disallowed human intervention.
Disallowed for human handling of exception.A philosophy that put machine over man.Don't bow down to the stone image of the beast of man, for this beast is error prone and the image of this beast can be no better, even in perfection of an image.computers are made of stone, mineral, metals, etc.. and the image is of thought processes.no need for religion in this realization.Open source allows for human interaction in its fundamental philosophy, where we all can make or contribute to correction and refinement.Another example of perfect code and failure was the newly installed 911 service in Atlanta, for the 1996 Olympics.
A system that required an address to be entered before it would transmit the call to the field.Were was the failure here?
Failure to give the Bicentennial park an address?
Or expecting all places of crime have been given an address?There was nothing wrong with the code of the software but in the design philosophy of the software.in other words there was no code to correct, without first realizing the philosophy the code was based on was what was in error.Microsoft is by far, practicing a philosophy of being successful by entrapment of its customers, making people need Microsoft software.And a large part of how it does this is by being Windows, where you can see where you want to go, but you can't get there by yourself.That's not the way open source software works.
And it is open source software pressure that gives MS motive to improve its products.And MS is biting the hand that is keeping it from being consumer to much of a fat lazy corporate consumer entrapment marketing firm, of which it apparent wants to be.And we have seen and continue to see legal courtroom proof of MS's intent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154232</id>
	<title>Re:Perfect code may not be perfect..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266328680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I might agree with all of that, yet when I want to play a top tier commercial game, Linux still fails to provide after all these years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I might agree with all of that , yet when I want to play a top tier commercial game , Linux still fails to provide after all these years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I might agree with all of that, yet when I want to play a top tier commercial game, Linux still fails to provide after all these years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154810</id>
	<title>Re:Choose freedom, not some $attribute</title>
	<author>sorak</author>
	<datestamp>1266333960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Freedom? Come on. Software's priorities are to work, to be secure, and to be cost-effective. The real argument should be about whether FOSS is as likely to meet those criteria. If not, screw freedom, I'm going to Microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Freedom ?
Come on .
Software 's priorities are to work , to be secure , and to be cost-effective .
The real argument should be about whether FOSS is as likely to meet those criteria .
If not , screw freedom , I 'm going to Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Freedom?
Come on.
Software's priorities are to work, to be secure, and to be cost-effective.
The real argument should be about whether FOSS is as likely to meet those criteria.
If not, screw freedom, I'm going to Microsoft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153014</id>
	<title>arguments for and against</title>
	<author>Exter-C</author>
	<datestamp>1266352380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the key arguments that people like to taunt regarding software security and specifically open source security is the fact that they compare say redhat enterprise 4 to Windows 2003. If you look at the Redhat Errata you may start to be alarmed. The question then comes around... 'who actually installs EVERY single redhat package when they install the whole system?'.. the answer from my experience is very few. However that is where many of the comparisons come from. If you segregate the overall number of comparable systems between linux and windows you will often find that the number of security vulnerabilities to be not wildly different. However if you compare the whole distribution's release to a windows install then your going to think.. 'dang windows is secure'. There are several other points in the argument that I tend to enjoy asking people who use these types of numbers.<br>1. if you have so few vulnerabilities what is your exposure footprint? e.g. how many people are trying to trojan you on windows vs linux?<br>2. how many of the vulnerabilities have been reported by the community that develop the software? If we look at Firefox for example most of their vulnerabilities are not actually reported by hackers or security experts but by their core developers who realise someone else in their team wrote some crap code or didn't properly do something. Here are some URL's to give some further evidence <a href="http://www.mozilla.org/security/announce/2009/mfsa2009-47.html" title="mozilla.org">http://www.mozilla.org/security/announce/2009/mfsa2009-47.html</a> [mozilla.org] <a href="http://www.mozilla.org/security/announce/2009/mfsa2009-63.html" title="mozilla.org">http://www.mozilla.org/security/announce/2009/mfsa2009-63.html</a> [mozilla.org] (although after actually going to find evidence I found that in 3.0 and 3.5 most vulnerabilities came from researchers and not the community like many earlier releases)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the key arguments that people like to taunt regarding software security and specifically open source security is the fact that they compare say redhat enterprise 4 to Windows 2003 .
If you look at the Redhat Errata you may start to be alarmed .
The question then comes around... 'who actually installs EVERY single redhat package when they install the whole system ? '. .
the answer from my experience is very few .
However that is where many of the comparisons come from .
If you segregate the overall number of comparable systems between linux and windows you will often find that the number of security vulnerabilities to be not wildly different .
However if you compare the whole distribution 's release to a windows install then your going to think.. 'dang windows is secure' .
There are several other points in the argument that I tend to enjoy asking people who use these types of numbers.1 .
if you have so few vulnerabilities what is your exposure footprint ?
e.g. how many people are trying to trojan you on windows vs linux ? 2 .
how many of the vulnerabilities have been reported by the community that develop the software ?
If we look at Firefox for example most of their vulnerabilities are not actually reported by hackers or security experts but by their core developers who realise someone else in their team wrote some crap code or did n't properly do something .
Here are some URL 's to give some further evidence http : //www.mozilla.org/security/announce/2009/mfsa2009-47.html [ mozilla.org ] http : //www.mozilla.org/security/announce/2009/mfsa2009-63.html [ mozilla.org ] ( although after actually going to find evidence I found that in 3.0 and 3.5 most vulnerabilities came from researchers and not the community like many earlier releases )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the key arguments that people like to taunt regarding software security and specifically open source security is the fact that they compare say redhat enterprise 4 to Windows 2003.
If you look at the Redhat Errata you may start to be alarmed.
The question then comes around... 'who actually installs EVERY single redhat package when they install the whole system?'..
the answer from my experience is very few.
However that is where many of the comparisons come from.
If you segregate the overall number of comparable systems between linux and windows you will often find that the number of security vulnerabilities to be not wildly different.
However if you compare the whole distribution's release to a windows install then your going to think.. 'dang windows is secure'.
There are several other points in the argument that I tend to enjoy asking people who use these types of numbers.1.
if you have so few vulnerabilities what is your exposure footprint?
e.g. how many people are trying to trojan you on windows vs linux?2.
how many of the vulnerabilities have been reported by the community that develop the software?
If we look at Firefox for example most of their vulnerabilities are not actually reported by hackers or security experts but by their core developers who realise someone else in their team wrote some crap code or didn't properly do something.
Here are some URL's to give some further evidence http://www.mozilla.org/security/announce/2009/mfsa2009-47.html [mozilla.org] http://www.mozilla.org/security/announce/2009/mfsa2009-63.html [mozilla.org] (although after actually going to find evidence I found that in 3.0 and 3.5 most vulnerabilities came from researchers and not the community like many earlier releases)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31156018</id>
	<title>I like open code.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266340800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Many eyeballs" comes from a coder who thinks even a fraction of his users are also coders. And of that fraction of coders it is quite possible that many of them are shit.</p><p>I don't need to see the source of some software to know it's crap when it breaks when used as intended/instructed. This goes for any software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Many eyeballs " comes from a coder who thinks even a fraction of his users are also coders .
And of that fraction of coders it is quite possible that many of them are shit.I do n't need to see the source of some software to know it 's crap when it breaks when used as intended/instructed .
This goes for any software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Many eyeballs" comes from a coder who thinks even a fraction of his users are also coders.
And of that fraction of coders it is quite possible that many of them are shit.I don't need to see the source of some software to know it's crap when it breaks when used as intended/instructed.
This goes for any software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152272</id>
	<title>Code fixes</title>
	<author>JWSmythe</author>
	<datestamp>1266256740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; That's kinda funny.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; I spent part of today working around problems with a closed source application.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; The other part of the day has been working with an open source program, where I've already solved the problem, and am documenting my changes to pass back to the author for the next release.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; I'm not a "core" developer for any public projects.  I've never submitted a bug fix to someone like Microsoft (but have sent bug complaints that went unanswered).  I have sent quite a few bug fixes for open source applications, most of which were used in future release.  I'm just another guy, or as indicated, another pair of eyes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>    That 's kinda funny .
    I spent part of today working around problems with a closed source application .
    The other part of the day has been working with an open source program , where I 've already solved the problem , and am documenting my changes to pass back to the author for the next release .
    I 'm not a " core " developer for any public projects .
I 've never submitted a bug fix to someone like Microsoft ( but have sent bug complaints that went unanswered ) .
I have sent quite a few bug fixes for open source applications , most of which were used in future release .
I 'm just another guy , or as indicated , another pair of eyes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
    That's kinda funny.
    I spent part of today working around problems with a closed source application.
    The other part of the day has been working with an open source program, where I've already solved the problem, and am documenting my changes to pass back to the author for the next release.
    I'm not a "core" developer for any public projects.
I've never submitted a bug fix to someone like Microsoft (but have sent bug complaints that went unanswered).
I have sent quite a few bug fixes for open source applications, most of which were used in future release.
I'm just another guy, or as indicated, another pair of eyes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154266</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, right....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266329220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What do they say?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...the proof is in the pudding?</p></div><p>Yes, they do say this, but it's never correct:</p><p>"The proof of the pudding is in the eating."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What do they say ?
...the proof is in the pudding ? Yes , they do say this , but it 's never correct : " The proof of the pudding is in the eating .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do they say?
...the proof is in the pudding?Yes, they do say this, but it's never correct:"The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31156426</id>
	<title>Re:Choose freedom, not some $attribute</title>
	<author>Ltap</author>
	<datestamp>1266342900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is where it comes down to users making a choice. Either you choose to improve/support an ideologically better solution, or you give up and use the product which is better <i>now</i>, and allow companies to dominate users unfairly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is where it comes down to users making a choice .
Either you choose to improve/support an ideologically better solution , or you give up and use the product which is better now , and allow companies to dominate users unfairly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is where it comes down to users making a choice.
Either you choose to improve/support an ideologically better solution, or you give up and use the product which is better now, and allow companies to dominate users unfairly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152282</id>
	<title>i don't buy it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266256800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>his argument is also wrong. he's assuming that just because developers are *paid* they are more productive than unpaid developers. how do you know that paid developers are not surfing the web all day? i just don't buy this at all...</htmltext>
<tokenext>his argument is also wrong .
he 's assuming that just because developers are * paid * they are more productive than unpaid developers .
how do you know that paid developers are not surfing the web all day ?
i just do n't buy this at all.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>his argument is also wrong.
he's assuming that just because developers are *paid* they are more productive than unpaid developers.
how do you know that paid developers are not surfing the web all day?
i just don't buy this at all...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154104</id>
	<title>Re:Choose freedom, not some $attribute</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266326820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is your argument supposed to mean that *we* should trust is the pin-striped suit wearing <a href="http://www.retrologic.com/jargon/D/Dr--Fred-Mbogo.html" title="retrologic.com">Dr. Fred MBogo</a> [retrologic.com] with the 100 million dollar home, because he makes a lot of money?

</p><p> Because in my interpretation of your metaphor the only thing that I can think that corresponds to Microsoft's track record would be  <a href="http://www.retrologic.com/jargon/D/Dr--Fred-Mbogo.html" title="retrologic.com">Dr. Fred MBogo</a> [retrologic.com].

</p><p> I think a more accurate metaphor would be that Open Source corresponds to the FDA where all tests, procedures, and results are publicly reviewable, and that proprietary software like Microsoft's corresponds to superb marketers advertising the latest cancer curing snake oil that must be good because it costs so much and since the manufacturers live in dream mansions they must be legitimate.

</p><p> Or to put it simply: open source  chemistry, proprietary software   alchemy. Here's my evidence: from wikipedia, some portions of the definition of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific\_method" title="wikipedia.org">the scientific method</a> [wikipedia.org]:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>....<br>
Another basic expectation is to document, archive and <b>share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing <b>other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them</b>. This practice, called <b>full disclosure</b>, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.</b></p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is your argument supposed to mean that * we * should trust is the pin-striped suit wearing Dr. Fred MBogo [ retrologic.com ] with the 100 million dollar home , because he makes a lot of money ?
Because in my interpretation of your metaphor the only thing that I can think that corresponds to Microsoft 's track record would be Dr. Fred MBogo [ retrologic.com ] .
I think a more accurate metaphor would be that Open Source corresponds to the FDA where all tests , procedures , and results are publicly reviewable , and that proprietary software like Microsoft 's corresponds to superb marketers advertising the latest cancer curing snake oil that must be good because it costs so much and since the manufacturers live in dream mansions they must be legitimate .
Or to put it simply : open source chemistry , proprietary software alchemy .
Here 's my evidence : from wikipedia , some portions of the definition of the scientific method [ wikipedia.org ] : Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena , acquiring new knowledge , or correcting and integrating previous knowledge .
To be termed scientific , a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable , empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning .
A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation , and the formulation and testing of hypotheses .
... . Another basic expectation is to document , archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists , thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them .
This practice , called full disclosure , also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is your argument supposed to mean that *we* should trust is the pin-striped suit wearing Dr. Fred MBogo [retrologic.com] with the 100 million dollar home, because he makes a lot of money?
Because in my interpretation of your metaphor the only thing that I can think that corresponds to Microsoft's track record would be  Dr. Fred MBogo [retrologic.com].
I think a more accurate metaphor would be that Open Source corresponds to the FDA where all tests, procedures, and results are publicly reviewable, and that proprietary software like Microsoft's corresponds to superb marketers advertising the latest cancer curing snake oil that must be good because it costs so much and since the manufacturers live in dream mansions they must be legitimate.
Or to put it simply: open source  chemistry, proprietary software   alchemy.
Here's my evidence: from wikipedia, some portions of the definition of the scientific method [wikipedia.org]:Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.
To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.
A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.
....
Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them.
This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153034</id>
	<title>everyone remembers what the critic said...</title>
	<author>3seas</author>
	<datestamp>1266352620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but nobody remembers who the critic is.</p><p>and this critic is far less known than Linus.</p><p>And obviously less experienced at actually dealing with software development.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but nobody remembers who the critic is.and this critic is far less known than Linus.And obviously less experienced at actually dealing with software development .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but nobody remembers who the critic is.and this critic is far less known than Linus.And obviously less experienced at actually dealing with software development.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153796</id>
	<title>Re:To get software truly correct...</title>
	<author>rasputin465</author>
	<datestamp>1266321600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I had the exact same thought.  "Getting software right is very, very difficult"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... "trust us, we know; we still haven't figure out how to get it right".</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had the exact same thought .
" Getting software right is very , very difficult " ... " trust us , we know ; we still have n't figure out how to get it right " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had the exact same thought.
"Getting software right is very, very difficult" ... "trust us, we know; we still haven't figure out how to get it right".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152716</id>
	<title>FUD</title>
	<author>mbone</author>
	<datestamp>1266261480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One big piece of FUD here is the notion that Microsoft programmers are paid, while open source programmers are not. The open source projects I know of advance mostly because of paid programmers, and I suspect that that is the case in general. That gives them the usual capitalist incentives for finding and removing bugs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One big piece of FUD here is the notion that Microsoft programmers are paid , while open source programmers are not .
The open source projects I know of advance mostly because of paid programmers , and I suspect that that is the case in general .
That gives them the usual capitalist incentives for finding and removing bugs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One big piece of FUD here is the notion that Microsoft programmers are paid, while open source programmers are not.
The open source projects I know of advance mostly because of paid programmers, and I suspect that that is the case in general.
That gives them the usual capitalist incentives for finding and removing bugs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154760</id>
	<title>Nice misdirection</title>
	<author>JustNiz</author>
	<datestamp>1266333540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> &gt;&gt;&gt; "Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow."... The open source community uses this argument to assert that open source software is more secure than proprietary software.</p><p>Shawn Herrnan starts off by making the above premise, then proves his own point by ripping his own premise apart...furthermore his own premise is guilty of massive overgeneralisation and incompleteness.</p><p>He's clearly trying to get readers to subconsciously associate that this is the ONLY reason why Linux is more secure than Windows, which is baloney. Linux starts out with a much better security model. From the get-go, UNIX (which Linux is based quite directly on) was intended to be a multi-user system. Windows has been a continual kludge of disjointed evolutionary decisions rooted ultimately in single-user DOS.</p><p>For real proof, lets just consider directly the actual relative security records of the software itself. Consider the number of Windows security holes compared to Linux. Or just about Opensurce projects generally,  lets just start with IE and Firefox.</p><p>Clearly his own initial premise is so faulty so and is the only basis of his whole article so his whole article is invalid. Its actual purpose seems clear.... it is (not even very well done) misdirection to promote FUD in those who are not technically savvy, with the side benefit of allowing him to be seen kissing Microsoft butt in public.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; " Given enough eyeballs , all bugs are shallow. " .. .
The open source community uses this argument to assert that open source software is more secure than proprietary software.Shawn Herrnan starts off by making the above premise , then proves his own point by ripping his own premise apart...furthermore his own premise is guilty of massive overgeneralisation and incompleteness.He 's clearly trying to get readers to subconsciously associate that this is the ONLY reason why Linux is more secure than Windows , which is baloney .
Linux starts out with a much better security model .
From the get-go , UNIX ( which Linux is based quite directly on ) was intended to be a multi-user system .
Windows has been a continual kludge of disjointed evolutionary decisions rooted ultimately in single-user DOS.For real proof , lets just consider directly the actual relative security records of the software itself .
Consider the number of Windows security holes compared to Linux .
Or just about Opensurce projects generally , lets just start with IE and Firefox.Clearly his own initial premise is so faulty so and is the only basis of his whole article so his whole article is invalid .
Its actual purpose seems clear.... it is ( not even very well done ) misdirection to promote FUD in those who are not technically savvy , with the side benefit of allowing him to be seen kissing Microsoft butt in public .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> &gt;&gt;&gt; "Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow."...
The open source community uses this argument to assert that open source software is more secure than proprietary software.Shawn Herrnan starts off by making the above premise, then proves his own point by ripping his own premise apart...furthermore his own premise is guilty of massive overgeneralisation and incompleteness.He's clearly trying to get readers to subconsciously associate that this is the ONLY reason why Linux is more secure than Windows, which is baloney.
Linux starts out with a much better security model.
From the get-go, UNIX (which Linux is based quite directly on) was intended to be a multi-user system.
Windows has been a continual kludge of disjointed evolutionary decisions rooted ultimately in single-user DOS.For real proof, lets just consider directly the actual relative security records of the software itself.
Consider the number of Windows security holes compared to Linux.
Or just about Opensurce projects generally,  lets just start with IE and Firefox.Clearly his own initial premise is so faulty so and is the only basis of his whole article so his whole article is invalid.
Its actual purpose seems clear.... it is (not even very well done) misdirection to promote FUD in those who are not technically savvy, with the side benefit of allowing him to be seen kissing Microsoft butt in public.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154582</id>
	<title>Re:To get software truly correct...</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1266332460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Since when does MS have the right to say "To get software truly correct..."? They KNOW how to make software secure?</p></div><p>Yes.  They just purposefully choose not to.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when does MS have the right to say " To get software truly correct... " ?
They KNOW how to make software secure ? Yes .
They just purposefully choose not to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since when does MS have the right to say "To get software truly correct..."?
They KNOW how to make software secure?Yes.
They just purposefully choose not to.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152556</id>
	<title>Re:Choose freedom, not some $attribute</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266259560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Exactly.</p><p>
&nbsp; Microsoft is a business that exists to make money. (Obscene amounts of it, if you want my opinion.)</p><p>
&nbsp; People who code free software generally do so to make better software.</p><p>
&nbsp; I know which one I trust.</p><p>SB</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
  Microsoft is a business that exists to make money .
( Obscene amounts of it , if you want my opinion .
)   People who code free software generally do so to make better software .
  I know which one I trust.SB</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Exactly.
  Microsoft is a business that exists to make money.
(Obscene amounts of it, if you want my opinion.
)
  People who code free software generally do so to make better software.
  I know which one I trust.SB</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153336</id>
	<title>The harsh cold light of public scrutiny</title>
	<author>Dr\_Barnowl</author>
	<datestamp>1266313140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A major factor in what makes open-source software more secure?</p><p>The kind of hacks that make people cringe don't survive for long, and are less likely to even make it into the wild.</p><p>Imagine you're coding on a closed product, your management demands a feature, and you're pressured into "just doing it". You're likely to just make an ugly kludge, build it, and ship it.</p><p>Now imagine you're required to release the source code as well, and you know that at least one coder you respect is going to be reading it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A major factor in what makes open-source software more secure ? The kind of hacks that make people cringe do n't survive for long , and are less likely to even make it into the wild.Imagine you 're coding on a closed product , your management demands a feature , and you 're pressured into " just doing it " .
You 're likely to just make an ugly kludge , build it , and ship it.Now imagine you 're required to release the source code as well , and you know that at least one coder you respect is going to be reading it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A major factor in what makes open-source software more secure?The kind of hacks that make people cringe don't survive for long, and are less likely to even make it into the wild.Imagine you're coding on a closed product, your management demands a feature, and you're pressured into "just doing it".
You're likely to just make an ugly kludge, build it, and ship it.Now imagine you're required to release the source code as well, and you know that at least one coder you respect is going to be reading it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154280</id>
	<title>Re:PEBCEK is the issue...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266329520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's PEBKAC, not PEBCEK.</p><p>Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's PEBKAC , not PEBCEK.Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's PEBKAC, not PEBCEK.Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153982</id>
	<title>Strange accusation.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266324840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Most members of the periphery [those outside the core developer group] do not have the necessary debugging skills" Well, yeah, but there's a shitload of possible candidates. It's just as easy to say that the members of the team on a closed source project do not have the necessary debugging skills.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Most members of the periphery [ those outside the core developer group ] do not have the necessary debugging skills " Well , yeah , but there 's a shitload of possible candidates .
It 's just as easy to say that the members of the team on a closed source project do not have the necessary debugging skills .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Most members of the periphery [those outside the core developer group] do not have the necessary debugging skills" Well, yeah, but there's a shitload of possible candidates.
It's just as easy to say that the members of the team on a closed source project do not have the necessary debugging skills.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152666</id>
	<title>Bugs Exist Because We Use the Wrong Software Model</title>
	<author>rebelscience</author>
	<datestamp>1266260940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course, humans cannot think of everything, but with the right software model and the right tools, we will be able to. For the same reason that we use tools to perform complex calculations flawlessly, calculations that we use to have an extremely hard time doing reliably manually. We don't have the right software model in which to construct rock-solid applications because we are not thinking outside the box. We are addicted to our way of doing things.</p><p>I defend the <a href="http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2008/07/how-to-solve-parallel-programming.html" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">hypothesis</a> [blogspot.com] that the two major crises that afflict the computer industry (unreliability and low productivity) are due to our having adopted the Turing Machine as the de facto computing model in the last century. The thread concept (algorithm) is fundamentally flawed and the use of multithreading in multicore processors exacerbates the productivity and reliability problems by at least an order of magnitude. The only way to solve the crisis is to switch to a non-threaded, non-algorithmic, syncrhonous (deterministic), reactive and implicitly parallel model.</p><p>The big surprise in all this is that the solution to the crisis is not rocket science. It is based on a simple parallelizing concept that has been in use for decades. We already use it to simulate parallelism in video games, simulations and cellular automata. Use two buffers; while processing buffer A, fill buffer B with all the objects to be processed during next cycle. When buffer A is done, swap buffers and repeat the cycle. Two buffers are used to prevent racing conditions and ensure robust timing. No threads, no fuss and the resulting code is deterministic. We just need to take the concept down to the instruction level within the processor itself and adopt a synchronous reactive software model. It's not rocket science.</p><p>Folks, the days of Turing, Babbage and Lady Ada are soon coming to an end. It's time to wake up and abandon the flawed ideas of the baby-boomer generation and forge a new future. The boomers were wildly successful but this is a new age, the age of massive parallelism and super complex programs. The boomers need to retire and pass the baton to a new generation of computists. Sorry but that's the way I see it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , humans can not think of everything , but with the right software model and the right tools , we will be able to .
For the same reason that we use tools to perform complex calculations flawlessly , calculations that we use to have an extremely hard time doing reliably manually .
We do n't have the right software model in which to construct rock-solid applications because we are not thinking outside the box .
We are addicted to our way of doing things.I defend the hypothesis [ blogspot.com ] that the two major crises that afflict the computer industry ( unreliability and low productivity ) are due to our having adopted the Turing Machine as the de facto computing model in the last century .
The thread concept ( algorithm ) is fundamentally flawed and the use of multithreading in multicore processors exacerbates the productivity and reliability problems by at least an order of magnitude .
The only way to solve the crisis is to switch to a non-threaded , non-algorithmic , syncrhonous ( deterministic ) , reactive and implicitly parallel model.The big surprise in all this is that the solution to the crisis is not rocket science .
It is based on a simple parallelizing concept that has been in use for decades .
We already use it to simulate parallelism in video games , simulations and cellular automata .
Use two buffers ; while processing buffer A , fill buffer B with all the objects to be processed during next cycle .
When buffer A is done , swap buffers and repeat the cycle .
Two buffers are used to prevent racing conditions and ensure robust timing .
No threads , no fuss and the resulting code is deterministic .
We just need to take the concept down to the instruction level within the processor itself and adopt a synchronous reactive software model .
It 's not rocket science.Folks , the days of Turing , Babbage and Lady Ada are soon coming to an end .
It 's time to wake up and abandon the flawed ideas of the baby-boomer generation and forge a new future .
The boomers were wildly successful but this is a new age , the age of massive parallelism and super complex programs .
The boomers need to retire and pass the baton to a new generation of computists .
Sorry but that 's the way I see it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, humans cannot think of everything, but with the right software model and the right tools, we will be able to.
For the same reason that we use tools to perform complex calculations flawlessly, calculations that we use to have an extremely hard time doing reliably manually.
We don't have the right software model in which to construct rock-solid applications because we are not thinking outside the box.
We are addicted to our way of doing things.I defend the hypothesis [blogspot.com] that the two major crises that afflict the computer industry (unreliability and low productivity) are due to our having adopted the Turing Machine as the de facto computing model in the last century.
The thread concept (algorithm) is fundamentally flawed and the use of multithreading in multicore processors exacerbates the productivity and reliability problems by at least an order of magnitude.
The only way to solve the crisis is to switch to a non-threaded, non-algorithmic, syncrhonous (deterministic), reactive and implicitly parallel model.The big surprise in all this is that the solution to the crisis is not rocket science.
It is based on a simple parallelizing concept that has been in use for decades.
We already use it to simulate parallelism in video games, simulations and cellular automata.
Use two buffers; while processing buffer A, fill buffer B with all the objects to be processed during next cycle.
When buffer A is done, swap buffers and repeat the cycle.
Two buffers are used to prevent racing conditions and ensure robust timing.
No threads, no fuss and the resulting code is deterministic.
We just need to take the concept down to the instruction level within the processor itself and adopt a synchronous reactive software model.
It's not rocket science.Folks, the days of Turing, Babbage and Lady Ada are soon coming to an end.
It's time to wake up and abandon the flawed ideas of the baby-boomer generation and forge a new future.
The boomers were wildly successful but this is a new age, the age of massive parallelism and super complex programs.
The boomers need to retire and pass the baton to a new generation of computists.
Sorry but that's the way I see it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152348</id>
	<title>Re:PEBCEK is the issue...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266257700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Unless you're writing some insanely complex application like a launcher for thermonuclear missiles, you pretty much will have user error as a major instigator of bugs.</p> </div><p>A launching system for a thermonuclear missile isn't necessarily very complex, it's just vital that it isn't prone to failure.<br>I think it's probably a relatively simple system, and hardly comparable to an OS Kernel - which then would then be much more complex.</p><p>Any authors of thermonuclear missile control systems are welcome to falsify/verify this claim, assuming your Slashdot karma is more worth to you than your job/future/life.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Until you get your code into the hands of users who - for example - will repeatedly hit the ENTER key wile waiting for a response, you don't have a clue what might happen.</p></div><p>AFAIK, usually the BIOS buffers the keyboard input to prevent this from being a problem.  Also a typical program won't take keyboard input until it specifically wants to.  This may be simplified, but I hardly think this is a good example of a potential problem.</p><p>I do see your (badly communicated) point though; yes - Usability testing is important.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless you 're writing some insanely complex application like a launcher for thermonuclear missiles , you pretty much will have user error as a major instigator of bugs .
A launching system for a thermonuclear missile is n't necessarily very complex , it 's just vital that it is n't prone to failure.I think it 's probably a relatively simple system , and hardly comparable to an OS Kernel - which then would then be much more complex.Any authors of thermonuclear missile control systems are welcome to falsify/verify this claim , assuming your Slashdot karma is more worth to you than your job/future/life .
; ) Until you get your code into the hands of users who - for example - will repeatedly hit the ENTER key wile waiting for a response , you do n't have a clue what might happen.AFAIK , usually the BIOS buffers the keyboard input to prevent this from being a problem .
Also a typical program wo n't take keyboard input until it specifically wants to .
This may be simplified , but I hardly think this is a good example of a potential problem.I do see your ( badly communicated ) point though ; yes - Usability testing is important .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless you're writing some insanely complex application like a launcher for thermonuclear missiles, you pretty much will have user error as a major instigator of bugs.
A launching system for a thermonuclear missile isn't necessarily very complex, it's just vital that it isn't prone to failure.I think it's probably a relatively simple system, and hardly comparable to an OS Kernel - which then would then be much more complex.Any authors of thermonuclear missile control systems are welcome to falsify/verify this claim, assuming your Slashdot karma is more worth to you than your job/future/life.
;)Until you get your code into the hands of users who - for example - will repeatedly hit the ENTER key wile waiting for a response, you don't have a clue what might happen.AFAIK, usually the BIOS buffers the keyboard input to prevent this from being a problem.
Also a typical program won't take keyboard input until it specifically wants to.
This may be simplified, but I hardly think this is a good example of a potential problem.I do see your (badly communicated) point though; yes - Usability testing is important.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31156292</id>
	<title>Re:Why do we take M$ punditry seriously?</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1266342420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, one of the "bitter lessons" of the "big" vendors that MS ignored was that you can't create an OS that runs on a 8088 with 16KB of RAM and an audio cassette for mass storage.</p><p>Backward compatibility was a key element that made it economically feasible for consumers to upgrade their computers and thus create the economies of scale we enjoy today. Imagine what would have happened (or not happened) if Linus had to implement the Linux kernel on a PDP-11.</p><p>There are certainly downsides to backward compatibility put there are positive aspects as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , one of the " bitter lessons " of the " big " vendors that MS ignored was that you ca n't create an OS that runs on a 8088 with 16KB of RAM and an audio cassette for mass storage.Backward compatibility was a key element that made it economically feasible for consumers to upgrade their computers and thus create the economies of scale we enjoy today .
Imagine what would have happened ( or not happened ) if Linus had to implement the Linux kernel on a PDP-11.There are certainly downsides to backward compatibility put there are positive aspects as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, one of the "bitter lessons" of the "big" vendors that MS ignored was that you can't create an OS that runs on a 8088 with 16KB of RAM and an audio cassette for mass storage.Backward compatibility was a key element that made it economically feasible for consumers to upgrade their computers and thus create the economies of scale we enjoy today.
Imagine what would have happened (or not happened) if Linus had to implement the Linux kernel on a PDP-11.There are certainly downsides to backward compatibility put there are positive aspects as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154642</id>
	<title>Re:PEBCEK is the issue...</title>
	<author>Drethon</author>
	<datestamp>1266332760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One of my college professors likes to tell the story about one of the Rational tools that was designed to find all possible paths to a destination.<br>
<br>
They were testing it on software used to launch an air to air missile from a fighter and after a while the Rational people came back and said there are three possible paths to launch a missile.<br>
<br>
The military people said their tool was wrong, there is only one path.<br>
<br>
The Rational people pointed out the three distinct paths their tool found.<br>
<br>
The military people said oh shit...</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of my college professors likes to tell the story about one of the Rational tools that was designed to find all possible paths to a destination .
They were testing it on software used to launch an air to air missile from a fighter and after a while the Rational people came back and said there are three possible paths to launch a missile .
The military people said their tool was wrong , there is only one path .
The Rational people pointed out the three distinct paths their tool found .
The military people said oh shit.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of my college professors likes to tell the story about one of the Rational tools that was designed to find all possible paths to a destination.
They were testing it on software used to launch an air to air missile from a fighter and after a while the Rational people came back and said there are three possible paths to launch a missile.
The military people said their tool was wrong, there is only one path.
The Rational people pointed out the three distinct paths their tool found.
The military people said oh shit...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31156946</id>
	<title>Re:Choose freedom, not some $attribute</title>
	<author>MightyMartian</author>
	<datestamp>1266344700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And yet I don't recall it being GNU or GPL sub-contractors sending me a nice letter a year ago announcing that they wanted to review my software licenses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And yet I do n't recall it being GNU or GPL sub-contractors sending me a nice letter a year ago announcing that they wanted to review my software licenses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And yet I don't recall it being GNU or GPL sub-contractors sending me a nice letter a year ago announcing that they wanted to review my software licenses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31156656</id>
	<title>Wrong.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266343740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As we can all see, this has gone famously for Microsoft.</p></div><p>Ad hominem fallacy. Refute the point, not the person.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As we can all see , this has gone famously for Microsoft.Ad hominem fallacy .
Refute the point , not the person .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As we can all see, this has gone famously for Microsoft.Ad hominem fallacy.
Refute the point, not the person.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152606</id>
	<title>Re:Code fixes</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1266260160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm not a "core" developer for any public projects. I've never submitted a bug fix to someone like Microsoft (but have sent bug complaints that went unanswered). I have sent quite a few bug fixes for open source applications, most of which were used in future release. I'm just another guy, or as indicated, another pair of eyes.</p></div><p>Well, in my experience what's annoying about closed source software is that you can't solve your own problems. I've reported quite a few defects and gotten quite a few of them fixed, but when you're working with a large vendor just getting through the support organization, down to development and back out through the normal release process means the implementation project is normally over before you get it. There's also a hotfix process but that creates its own headaches both in getting it, running other support cases on the same module and getting rid of it when it's rolled into a normal release.</p><p>Sometimes I really wish you could just patch it and roll your own build to solve your own problems. Right now, reporting bugs is more of a chore in the project and really more of a long term investment in not getting as many headaches in the future. I honestly admit there's been times where I've thought "man, am I glad I reported that six months ago" but other times I've cursed that I "wasted" time on support rather than just accept that it'll never work and get what works working and just do damage control on the rest. Ah well, nothing like a little undeserved flak for the consultant.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not a " core " developer for any public projects .
I 've never submitted a bug fix to someone like Microsoft ( but have sent bug complaints that went unanswered ) .
I have sent quite a few bug fixes for open source applications , most of which were used in future release .
I 'm just another guy , or as indicated , another pair of eyes.Well , in my experience what 's annoying about closed source software is that you ca n't solve your own problems .
I 've reported quite a few defects and gotten quite a few of them fixed , but when you 're working with a large vendor just getting through the support organization , down to development and back out through the normal release process means the implementation project is normally over before you get it .
There 's also a hotfix process but that creates its own headaches both in getting it , running other support cases on the same module and getting rid of it when it 's rolled into a normal release.Sometimes I really wish you could just patch it and roll your own build to solve your own problems .
Right now , reporting bugs is more of a chore in the project and really more of a long term investment in not getting as many headaches in the future .
I honestly admit there 's been times where I 've thought " man , am I glad I reported that six months ago " but other times I 've cursed that I " wasted " time on support rather than just accept that it 'll never work and get what works working and just do damage control on the rest .
Ah well , nothing like a little undeserved flak for the consultant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not a "core" developer for any public projects.
I've never submitted a bug fix to someone like Microsoft (but have sent bug complaints that went unanswered).
I have sent quite a few bug fixes for open source applications, most of which were used in future release.
I'm just another guy, or as indicated, another pair of eyes.Well, in my experience what's annoying about closed source software is that you can't solve your own problems.
I've reported quite a few defects and gotten quite a few of them fixed, but when you're working with a large vendor just getting through the support organization, down to development and back out through the normal release process means the implementation project is normally over before you get it.
There's also a hotfix process but that creates its own headaches both in getting it, running other support cases on the same module and getting rid of it when it's rolled into a normal release.Sometimes I really wish you could just patch it and roll your own build to solve your own problems.
Right now, reporting bugs is more of a chore in the project and really more of a long term investment in not getting as many headaches in the future.
I honestly admit there's been times where I've thought "man, am I glad I reported that six months ago" but other times I've cursed that I "wasted" time on support rather than just accept that it'll never work and get what works working and just do damage control on the rest.
Ah well, nothing like a little undeserved flak for the consultant.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153354</id>
	<title>l4m3rx</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266313440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's see: [2]</p><p>Mr Microsoft Man: "Eyeballs alone won't make a kernel secure."<br>Mr FOSS Man: "Yeah , and less eyeballs make it more secure<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) DCOM dude<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;]"</p><p>Let me try this on for a couple of other common criticisms of some FOSS projects:</p><p>Mr Web Man: "Safari is way faster than Firefox on OS X and uses less resources."<br>Mr FOSS Man: "Just like IE ? btw ff runs on irix , does safari ?"</p><p>Mr Netbook Man: "The Gnome desktop is still kinda clunky, even after all these years."<br>Mr FOSS Man: "And XP after so many years is so cool<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)"</p><p>Mr Graphic Designer Man: "Linux still doesn't do proper color management."<br>Mr FOSS Man: "Well<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... for colors u must use MacOSX.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)"</p><p>Mr Gamer Man: "There aren't any decent games for Linux."<br>Mr FOSS Man: "Well<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...their are few games<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...but not much<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... but more then what we had few years back<nobr> <wbr></nobr>."</p><p>Who's derailing the conversation here, again?</p><p>Mr !FOSS Man: "NTFS is really stable and secure<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)"<br>Mr FOSS Man: "i really don't need to say anything more."</p><p>Mr !FOSS Man: "MacOSX is super."<br>Mr FOSS Man: "Yep. And the most unsecure OS<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:]"</p><p>Mr !FOSS Man: "DirecX is better then OpenGL"<br>Mr FOSS Man: "Yep... if M$ said - it's true<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....belive them<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:}"</p><p>Mr !FOSS Man: "Windows is easy to use."<br>Mr FOSS Man: "Hah<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and reliable.... just tell your vista to compress C: and see the message after reboot."</p><p>My point: OpenSource has his strengths and weaknesses, just like prop. source.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's see : [ 2 ] Mr Microsoft Man : " Eyeballs alone wo n't make a kernel secure .
" Mr FOSS Man : " Yeah , and less eyeballs make it more secure : ) DCOM dude ; ] " Let me try this on for a couple of other common criticisms of some FOSS projects : Mr Web Man : " Safari is way faster than Firefox on OS X and uses less resources .
" Mr FOSS Man : " Just like IE ?
btw ff runs on irix , does safari ?
" Mr Netbook Man : " The Gnome desktop is still kinda clunky , even after all these years .
" Mr FOSS Man : " And XP after so many years is so cool : ) " Mr Graphic Designer Man : " Linux still does n't do proper color management .
" Mr FOSS Man : " Well ... for colors u must use MacOSX .
: ) " Mr Gamer Man : " There are n't any decent games for Linux .
" Mr FOSS Man : " Well ...their are few games ...but not much .... but more then what we had few years back .
" Who 's derailing the conversation here , again ? Mr ! FOSS Man : " NTFS is really stable and secure : ) " Mr FOSS Man : " i really do n't need to say anything more .
" Mr ! FOSS Man : " MacOSX is super .
" Mr FOSS Man : " Yep .
And the most unsecure OS : ] " Mr ! FOSS Man : " DirecX is better then OpenGL " Mr FOSS Man : " Yep... if M $ said - it 's true ....belive them : } " Mr ! FOSS Man : " Windows is easy to use .
" Mr FOSS Man : " Hah ...and reliable.... just tell your vista to compress C : and see the message after reboot .
" My point : OpenSource has his strengths and weaknesses , just like prop .
source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's see: [2]Mr Microsoft Man: "Eyeballs alone won't make a kernel secure.
"Mr FOSS Man: "Yeah , and less eyeballs make it more secure :) DCOM dude ;]"Let me try this on for a couple of other common criticisms of some FOSS projects:Mr Web Man: "Safari is way faster than Firefox on OS X and uses less resources.
"Mr FOSS Man: "Just like IE ?
btw ff runs on irix , does safari ?
"Mr Netbook Man: "The Gnome desktop is still kinda clunky, even after all these years.
"Mr FOSS Man: "And XP after so many years is so cool :)"Mr Graphic Designer Man: "Linux still doesn't do proper color management.
"Mr FOSS Man: "Well ... for colors u must use MacOSX.
:)"Mr Gamer Man: "There aren't any decent games for Linux.
"Mr FOSS Man: "Well ...their are few games ...but not much .... but more then what we had few years back .
"Who's derailing the conversation here, again?Mr !FOSS Man: "NTFS is really stable and secure :)"Mr FOSS Man: "i really don't need to say anything more.
"Mr !FOSS Man: "MacOSX is super.
"Mr FOSS Man: "Yep.
And the most unsecure OS :]"Mr !FOSS Man: "DirecX is better then OpenGL"Mr FOSS Man: "Yep... if M$ said - it's true ....belive them :}"Mr !FOSS Man: "Windows is easy to use.
"Mr FOSS Man: "Hah ...and reliable.... just tell your vista to compress C: and see the message after reboot.
"My point: OpenSource has his strengths and weaknesses, just like prop.
source.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152260</id>
	<title>To get software truly correct...</title>
	<author>jamienk</author>
	<datestamp>1266256500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since when does MS have the right to say "To get software truly correct..."? They KNOW how to make software secure?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when does MS have the right to say " To get software truly correct... " ?
They KNOW how to make software secure ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since when does MS have the right to say "To get software truly correct..."?
They KNOW how to make software secure?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154508</id>
	<title>People, people, people!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266331800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>a) This guy goes at length to explain that software is difficult and the whole world is worse at it than M$; well, I think that's what happens with "professional" folks: they see work as a thing to bear. Meanwhile, FOSS are doing it out of joy. You couldn't stop them even if necessary. No wonder M$ is NOT innovative at all.</p><p>b) I'm seeing M$ immitating everyone -- like always -- with one or two added features. Like showing cell phone images over "Google" maps. It's all PR and some guys, whom I had in greater respect, fall for it. Tsk.</p><p>c) I tried to post things and wasn't able because of that stupid timelimit (and probably being anonymous). That's a nice thing to prevent people who think fast from posting... Well done!</p><p>Yeah, I know, if you don't like here, don't come here...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a ) This guy goes at length to explain that software is difficult and the whole world is worse at it than M $ ; well , I think that 's what happens with " professional " folks : they see work as a thing to bear .
Meanwhile , FOSS are doing it out of joy .
You could n't stop them even if necessary .
No wonder M $ is NOT innovative at all.b ) I 'm seeing M $ immitating everyone -- like always -- with one or two added features .
Like showing cell phone images over " Google " maps .
It 's all PR and some guys , whom I had in greater respect , fall for it .
Tsk.c ) I tried to post things and was n't able because of that stupid timelimit ( and probably being anonymous ) .
That 's a nice thing to prevent people who think fast from posting... Well done ! Yeah , I know , if you do n't like here , do n't come here.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a) This guy goes at length to explain that software is difficult and the whole world is worse at it than M$; well, I think that's what happens with "professional" folks: they see work as a thing to bear.
Meanwhile, FOSS are doing it out of joy.
You couldn't stop them even if necessary.
No wonder M$ is NOT innovative at all.b) I'm seeing M$ immitating everyone -- like always -- with one or two added features.
Like showing cell phone images over "Google" maps.
It's all PR and some guys, whom I had in greater respect, fall for it.
Tsk.c) I tried to post things and wasn't able because of that stupid timelimit (and probably being anonymous).
That's a nice thing to prevent people who think fast from posting... Well done!Yeah, I know, if you don't like here, don't come here...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152514</id>
	<title>Why do we take M$ punditry seriously?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266259140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me rephrase this for him -</p><p>"For 25 years, we deliberately chose to ignore the bitter lessons that were learned by the big vendors, to take shortcuts<br>to ship shit software first and fix it later and to build up massive layers of cruft in the name of backward compatibility. Now we are caught in a nice pickle<br>as we've spent years trying fill the leaks in our crap - some of which is so insecure that, 8 years after the launch, we still have record numbers of bugs in<br>Windows XP almost every fucking Patch Tuesday -and restructure it into something rock solid.<br>However, until we can get this done, we need to play smoke and mirrors, convince you to toss Win XP - and your old PC, most likely, buy our latest<br>and greatest and spit out evermore FUD about how nobody else can get stuff done except us.</p><p>Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the M$ business plan and I'm pleased to say that it's working as well as ever and thank you all"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me rephrase this for him - " For 25 years , we deliberately chose to ignore the bitter lessons that were learned by the big vendors , to take shortcutsto ship shit software first and fix it later and to build up massive layers of cruft in the name of backward compatibility .
Now we are caught in a nice pickleas we 've spent years trying fill the leaks in our crap - some of which is so insecure that , 8 years after the launch , we still have record numbers of bugs inWindows XP almost every fucking Patch Tuesday -and restructure it into something rock solid.However , until we can get this done , we need to play smoke and mirrors , convince you to toss Win XP - and your old PC , most likely , buy our latestand greatest and spit out evermore FUD about how nobody else can get stuff done except us.Ladies and gentlemen , I give you the M $ business plan and I 'm pleased to say that it 's working as well as ever and thank you all "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me rephrase this for him -"For 25 years, we deliberately chose to ignore the bitter lessons that were learned by the big vendors, to take shortcutsto ship shit software first and fix it later and to build up massive layers of cruft in the name of backward compatibility.
Now we are caught in a nice pickleas we've spent years trying fill the leaks in our crap - some of which is so insecure that, 8 years after the launch, we still have record numbers of bugs inWindows XP almost every fucking Patch Tuesday -and restructure it into something rock solid.However, until we can get this done, we need to play smoke and mirrors, convince you to toss Win XP - and your old PC, most likely, buy our latestand greatest and spit out evermore FUD about how nobody else can get stuff done except us.Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the M$ business plan and I'm pleased to say that it's working as well as ever and thank you all"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154028</id>
	<title>Re:Choose freedom, not some $attribute</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1266325560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I only drive cars that have been hand-assembled by individuals working out of their backyards.</i></p><p>Which would you trust more, secret Prius control software or Prius control software that is open and Woz can inspect?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I only drive cars that have been hand-assembled by individuals working out of their backyards.Which would you trust more , secret Prius control software or Prius control software that is open and Woz can inspect ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I only drive cars that have been hand-assembled by individuals working out of their backyards.Which would you trust more, secret Prius control software or Prius control software that is open and Woz can inspect?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153612</id>
	<title>a Microsoft program manager,</title>
	<author>silentcoder</author>
	<datestamp>1266318120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>questioning one of the tenents of open-source...</p><p>Well he would, wouldn't he<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... how is this news ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>questioning one of the tenents of open-source...Well he would , would n't he ... how is this news ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>questioning one of the tenents of open-source...Well he would, wouldn't he ... how is this news ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152182</id>
	<title>PEBCEK is the issue...</title>
	<author>filesiteguy</author>
	<datestamp>1266255660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unless you're writing some insanely complex application like a launcher for thermonuclear missiles, you pretty much will have user error as a major instigator of bugs.<br><br>Until you get your code into the hands of users who - for example - will repeatedly hit the ENTER key wile waiting for a response, you don't have a clue what might happen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless you 're writing some insanely complex application like a launcher for thermonuclear missiles , you pretty much will have user error as a major instigator of bugs.Until you get your code into the hands of users who - for example - will repeatedly hit the ENTER key wile waiting for a response , you do n't have a clue what might happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless you're writing some insanely complex application like a launcher for thermonuclear missiles, you pretty much will have user error as a major instigator of bugs.Until you get your code into the hands of users who - for example - will repeatedly hit the ENTER key wile waiting for a response, you don't have a clue what might happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31158378</id>
	<title>Correctness</title>
	<author>pizza\_milkshake</author>
	<datestamp>1266349800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Systems are either provably correct or not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Systems are either provably correct or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Systems are either provably correct or not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154830</id>
	<title>Deep bugs persist longer</title>
	<author>ka9dgx</author>
	<datestamp>1266334080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The deepest bug of all is the idea that you can write trustworthy code. Look at how long the integer overflow lurked in the merge sort.


Until we get rid of the need to trust code with everything, and build systems that only supply the minimum capabilities required to do a job to a given program, we're not going to have secure computing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The deepest bug of all is the idea that you can write trustworthy code .
Look at how long the integer overflow lurked in the merge sort .
Until we get rid of the need to trust code with everything , and build systems that only supply the minimum capabilities required to do a job to a given program , we 're not going to have secure computing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The deepest bug of all is the idea that you can write trustworthy code.
Look at how long the integer overflow lurked in the merge sort.
Until we get rid of the need to trust code with everything, and build systems that only supply the minimum capabilities required to do a job to a given program, we're not going to have secure computing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153388</id>
	<title>Competently done it'd just be propaganda</title>
	<author>jthill</author>
	<datestamp>1266314160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He reports Coverity's results on open source software<br>... but doesn't report Coverity's results on Microsoft's software.
</p><p>He reports that Coverity scanned 280 open-source projects<br>...but doesn't report that only 180 of those have "active developer support".
</p><p>He can't be bothered to present any data at all on the distribution of the reported or corrected defects &mdash; how many  are in nethack or aalib or that long-abandoned "flash-based photo album generator"?
</p><p>He doesn't, for instance, mention that Samba and several others have no defects Coverity can discover. None.
</p><p>Vim has none. X.org has<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... three.  All of KDE, nearly five million lines of code, has<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... ninety. glibc has none.
</p><p>There have been MySQL and PostgreSQL and Berkeley DB versions with none. His bioblurb says he's "currently working to ensure that Microsoft SQL Server is secure". That's interesting. You mean it isn't, now? How many defects can Coverity find in SQL Server?
</p><p>TFA is a nauseating pile of sneers and aspersions ("Hope is not a security strategy"?) built on a very carefully selected and very few facts. "No one is doing auditing" he quotes.  "No one is doing auditing" <em>and reporting it to some self-styled central authority almost no one ever heard of</em> is what's true, but telling the truth isn't what he's doing here. He's a "Program Manager", and he works for Microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He reports Coverity 's results on open source software... but does n't report Coverity 's results on Microsoft 's software .
He reports that Coverity scanned 280 open-source projects...but does n't report that only 180 of those have " active developer support " .
He ca n't be bothered to present any data at all on the distribution of the reported or corrected defects    how many are in nethack or aalib or that long-abandoned " flash-based photo album generator " ?
He does n't , for instance , mention that Samba and several others have no defects Coverity can discover .
None . Vim has none .
X.org has ... three. All of KDE , nearly five million lines of code , has ... ninety. glibc has none .
There have been MySQL and PostgreSQL and Berkeley DB versions with none .
His bioblurb says he 's " currently working to ensure that Microsoft SQL Server is secure " .
That 's interesting .
You mean it is n't , now ?
How many defects can Coverity find in SQL Server ?
TFA is a nauseating pile of sneers and aspersions ( " Hope is not a security strategy " ?
) built on a very carefully selected and very few facts .
" No one is doing auditing " he quotes .
" No one is doing auditing " and reporting it to some self-styled central authority almost no one ever heard of is what 's true , but telling the truth is n't what he 's doing here .
He 's a " Program Manager " , and he works for Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He reports Coverity's results on open source software... but doesn't report Coverity's results on Microsoft's software.
He reports that Coverity scanned 280 open-source projects...but doesn't report that only 180 of those have "active developer support".
He can't be bothered to present any data at all on the distribution of the reported or corrected defects — how many  are in nethack or aalib or that long-abandoned "flash-based photo album generator"?
He doesn't, for instance, mention that Samba and several others have no defects Coverity can discover.
None.
Vim has none.
X.org has ... three.  All of KDE, nearly five million lines of code, has ... ninety. glibc has none.
There have been MySQL and PostgreSQL and Berkeley DB versions with none.
His bioblurb says he's "currently working to ensure that Microsoft SQL Server is secure".
That's interesting.
You mean it isn't, now?
How many defects can Coverity find in SQL Server?
TFA is a nauseating pile of sneers and aspersions ("Hope is not a security strategy"?
) built on a very carefully selected and very few facts.
"No one is doing auditing" he quotes.
"No one is doing auditing" and reporting it to some self-styled central authority almost no one ever heard of is what's true, but telling the truth isn't what he's doing here.
He's a "Program Manager", and he works for Microsoft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152638</id>
	<title>Re:Code fixes</title>
	<author>shadowbearer</author>
	<datestamp>1266260580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; I did the same the other day for a proprietary security camera setup software (under windows) which is a fairly blatant ripoff of zoneminder.</p><p>
&nbsp; The company that produced this software (some of you may know who I'm talking about) was no help to the business owner I was working for, he'd already spent a few hundred dollars working with their "support techs" - who were unable to solve his problem (conflict with a anti-malware app) and there is almost no support available online even for basic issues.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; I've worked with ZM enough that once I dived into the UI of the proprietary app I had a basic understanding of how it worked, and could solve the problem.</p><p>
&nbsp; I'm not sure who I'd submit a bug application to... but I did image his system as part of the $75 four hour fix, and now he knows who to contact to get the thing fixed again if it goes south... happy customer and probably won't see him again for some months, good!</p><p>
&nbsp; Many eyes. It's not just the people fixing the code at the basic level, it's the people doing the fixes at the customer level.  If we are permitted at least a small amount of understanding of how the system works without buying expensive subscriptions to developer level support vs spending hours online working thru multiple tiers of tech support, we can contribute too..</p><p>
&nbsp; I run zoneminder at home, if I have problems I can google a ton of solutions or work out my own...</p><p>SB</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>  I did the same the other day for a proprietary security camera setup software ( under windows ) which is a fairly blatant ripoff of zoneminder .
  The company that produced this software ( some of you may know who I 'm talking about ) was no help to the business owner I was working for , he 'd already spent a few hundred dollars working with their " support techs " - who were unable to solve his problem ( conflict with a anti-malware app ) and there is almost no support available online even for basic issues .
    I 've worked with ZM enough that once I dived into the UI of the proprietary app I had a basic understanding of how it worked , and could solve the problem .
  I 'm not sure who I 'd submit a bug application to... but I did image his system as part of the $ 75 four hour fix , and now he knows who to contact to get the thing fixed again if it goes south... happy customer and probably wo n't see him again for some months , good !
  Many eyes .
It 's not just the people fixing the code at the basic level , it 's the people doing the fixes at the customer level .
If we are permitted at least a small amount of understanding of how the system works without buying expensive subscriptions to developer level support vs spending hours online working thru multiple tiers of tech support , we can contribute too. .   I run zoneminder at home , if I have problems I can google a ton of solutions or work out my own...SB</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
  I did the same the other day for a proprietary security camera setup software (under windows) which is a fairly blatant ripoff of zoneminder.
  The company that produced this software (some of you may know who I'm talking about) was no help to the business owner I was working for, he'd already spent a few hundred dollars working with their "support techs" - who were unable to solve his problem (conflict with a anti-malware app) and there is almost no support available online even for basic issues.
    I've worked with ZM enough that once I dived into the UI of the proprietary app I had a basic understanding of how it worked, and could solve the problem.
  I'm not sure who I'd submit a bug application to... but I did image his system as part of the $75 four hour fix, and now he knows who to contact to get the thing fixed again if it goes south... happy customer and probably won't see him again for some months, good!
  Many eyes.
It's not just the people fixing the code at the basic level, it's the people doing the fixes at the customer level.
If we are permitted at least a small amount of understanding of how the system works without buying expensive subscriptions to developer level support vs spending hours online working thru multiple tiers of tech support, we can contribute too..
  I run zoneminder at home, if I have problems I can google a ton of solutions or work out my own...SB</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154956</id>
	<title>... all bugs are shallow. Are they?</title>
	<author>SwashbucklingCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1266334860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course not.  It's total BS.</p><p>All you need for evidence is the readdir bug that began in BSD and was for around 25 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course not .
It 's total BS.All you need for evidence is the readdir bug that began in BSD and was for around 25 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course not.
It's total BS.All you need for evidence is the readdir bug that began in BSD and was for around 25 years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31155688</id>
	<title>Re:PEBCEK is the issue...</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1266338880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's simply not true. Proper, bug-free code should fail gracefully in the event of odd user behavior. It may be that random mashing of the keyboard will give the user some unexpected results but it should never cause the program to go into a state that it was not designed to go into, such as trying to access 0x00000000.</p></div><p>Absolutely, but until it gets into the hands of users, how do you know that you have arranged to have it fail gracefully in every combination of things that the user may do?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's simply not true .
Proper , bug-free code should fail gracefully in the event of odd user behavior .
It may be that random mashing of the keyboard will give the user some unexpected results but it should never cause the program to go into a state that it was not designed to go into , such as trying to access 0x00000000.Absolutely , but until it gets into the hands of users , how do you know that you have arranged to have it fail gracefully in every combination of things that the user may do ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's simply not true.
Proper, bug-free code should fail gracefully in the event of odd user behavior.
It may be that random mashing of the keyboard will give the user some unexpected results but it should never cause the program to go into a state that it was not designed to go into, such as trying to access 0x00000000.Absolutely, but until it gets into the hands of users, how do you know that you have arranged to have it fail gracefully in every combination of things that the user may do?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153896</id>
	<title>Re:Choose freedom, not some $attribute</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266323220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every single word ever written by Stallman on this subject is an attempt to frame the argument and shape what people think is important in software, and you are playing the same game here.  Hypocrite!</p><p>It also strikes me as rather dogmatic to talk about being "susceptible" to other people's points of view.</p><p>But then, you "freedom" guys always are.  Free software may indeed not be technically superior, but you don't even try to address what's the real point here, choosing instead to rant on about your pseudo-libertarian ideals.</p><p>Did you have any comment on the "all eyes make bugs shallow" thing?  No, thought not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every single word ever written by Stallman on this subject is an attempt to frame the argument and shape what people think is important in software , and you are playing the same game here .
Hypocrite ! It also strikes me as rather dogmatic to talk about being " susceptible " to other people 's points of view.But then , you " freedom " guys always are .
Free software may indeed not be technically superior , but you do n't even try to address what 's the real point here , choosing instead to rant on about your pseudo-libertarian ideals.Did you have any comment on the " all eyes make bugs shallow " thing ?
No , thought not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every single word ever written by Stallman on this subject is an attempt to frame the argument and shape what people think is important in software, and you are playing the same game here.
Hypocrite!It also strikes me as rather dogmatic to talk about being "susceptible" to other people's points of view.But then, you "freedom" guys always are.
Free software may indeed not be technically superior, but you don't even try to address what's the real point here, choosing instead to rant on about your pseudo-libertarian ideals.Did you have any comment on the "all eyes make bugs shallow" thing?
No, thought not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31157060</id>
	<title>Re:Who Wants to be A Millionaire has the Answer</title>
	<author>jvkjvk</author>
	<datestamp>1266345060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The weakest lifeline by far is to appeal to the wisdom of the crowd and ask the audience. This only works for the simplest question.</p></div><p>I don't think that your analysis is quite correct.</p><p>Widsom of the crowd is <b>excellent</b> <i>if you need to know what the crowd does</i>.</p><p>This does not necessarily mean the "simplest" quesions.  In fact, more often it's questions  of fact which are only simple if I spent that time to acquire the cultural referent.</p><p>Especially on pop cultural issues I think crowd is the best way to get an easy correct answer to questions which I would otherwise be unable to answer - even if there were only two answers left I't would be a 50/50 shot.</p><p>Ask about who won American Idol, or the Super Bowl and you'll end up with about a 100\% confidence level on one choice (the correct one) - the scores will look something like 75\%, 10\%, 5\%, 5\%, 5\% or someting.</p><p>Ask about quarks and you probably won't.</p><p>It's all about what you choose to ask the crowd about (and who that crowd consists of)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Regards.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The weakest lifeline by far is to appeal to the wisdom of the crowd and ask the audience .
This only works for the simplest question.I do n't think that your analysis is quite correct.Widsom of the crowd is excellent if you need to know what the crowd does.This does not necessarily mean the " simplest " quesions .
In fact , more often it 's questions of fact which are only simple if I spent that time to acquire the cultural referent.Especially on pop cultural issues I think crowd is the best way to get an easy correct answer to questions which I would otherwise be unable to answer - even if there were only two answers left I't would be a 50/50 shot.Ask about who won American Idol , or the Super Bowl and you 'll end up with about a 100 \ % confidence level on one choice ( the correct one ) - the scores will look something like 75 \ % , 10 \ % , 5 \ % , 5 \ % , 5 \ % or someting.Ask about quarks and you probably wo n't.It 's all about what you choose to ask the crowd about ( and who that crowd consists of ) ...Regards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The weakest lifeline by far is to appeal to the wisdom of the crowd and ask the audience.
This only works for the simplest question.I don't think that your analysis is quite correct.Widsom of the crowd is excellent if you need to know what the crowd does.This does not necessarily mean the "simplest" quesions.
In fact, more often it's questions  of fact which are only simple if I spent that time to acquire the cultural referent.Especially on pop cultural issues I think crowd is the best way to get an easy correct answer to questions which I would otherwise be unable to answer - even if there were only two answers left I't would be a 50/50 shot.Ask about who won American Idol, or the Super Bowl and you'll end up with about a 100\% confidence level on one choice (the correct one) - the scores will look something like 75\%, 10\%, 5\%, 5\%, 5\% or someting.Ask about quarks and you probably won't.It's all about what you choose to ask the crowd about (and who that crowd consists of) ...Regards.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153054</id>
	<title>On the benefits of software freedom</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1266352800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is precisely the kind of argument you become susceptible to if you think that an attribute of software (security) is more important than your freedom.</p></div><p>I'm a person with an @gnu.org email address, and I approve of this message!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p><p>I will go out and say that the quality aspects of software are important too.</p><p>But freedom helps that along.  You're more secure against Linux Genuine Advantage, because free software doesn't have activation shenanigans going on (although I do have a perl script I'd like to give you if you like).  If enough people want a feature that goes against corporate gatekeepers' interests, someone who's able to code it up might go do it.  Hopefully (and likely?) the many eyeballs are a bigger benefit than they're a detriment; it <em>does</em> take time to weed out the amateurish---which is different from amateur---patches and bug reports, though.</p><p>And in our current software landscape where the dominant free OS is unix-like, the hackers (and power users) enjoy a different kind of freedom too: they're more free to tweak their computer so it performs the way they like it to.  As I recall, when I was using proprietary (non-unix-like) OSes I couldn't as easily automate things and write small nifty shell scripts to help me make my computers run <em>just right</em>.  I think this is a valuable (but different) form of empowerment that may be useful to illustrate to people the free software ideas: "now imagine that the software didn't have the knob you wanted to twist; why, you could add that yourself, or if enough people want it they might. [etc.]"</p><p>But to recap my first point: even if free software isn't automagically more secure and less crash-prone, we can make it so, and due to its nature it is secure from some of the annoyances seen in proprietary software.  That alone is a big win; and I hear here on slashdot that the headaches had and salaries spent when ensuring license compliance make free software a good value proposition from the get-go.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is precisely the kind of argument you become susceptible to if you think that an attribute of software ( security ) is more important than your freedom.I 'm a person with an @ gnu.org email address , and I approve of this message !
; - ) I will go out and say that the quality aspects of software are important too.But freedom helps that along .
You 're more secure against Linux Genuine Advantage , because free software does n't have activation shenanigans going on ( although I do have a perl script I 'd like to give you if you like ) .
If enough people want a feature that goes against corporate gatekeepers ' interests , someone who 's able to code it up might go do it .
Hopefully ( and likely ?
) the many eyeballs are a bigger benefit than they 're a detriment ; it does take time to weed out the amateurish---which is different from amateur---patches and bug reports , though.And in our current software landscape where the dominant free OS is unix-like , the hackers ( and power users ) enjoy a different kind of freedom too : they 're more free to tweak their computer so it performs the way they like it to .
As I recall , when I was using proprietary ( non-unix-like ) OSes I could n't as easily automate things and write small nifty shell scripts to help me make my computers run just right .
I think this is a valuable ( but different ) form of empowerment that may be useful to illustrate to people the free software ideas : " now imagine that the software did n't have the knob you wanted to twist ; why , you could add that yourself , or if enough people want it they might .
[ etc. ] " But to recap my first point : even if free software is n't automagically more secure and less crash-prone , we can make it so , and due to its nature it is secure from some of the annoyances seen in proprietary software .
That alone is a big win ; and I hear here on slashdot that the headaches had and salaries spent when ensuring license compliance make free software a good value proposition from the get-go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is precisely the kind of argument you become susceptible to if you think that an attribute of software (security) is more important than your freedom.I'm a person with an @gnu.org email address, and I approve of this message!
;-)I will go out and say that the quality aspects of software are important too.But freedom helps that along.
You're more secure against Linux Genuine Advantage, because free software doesn't have activation shenanigans going on (although I do have a perl script I'd like to give you if you like).
If enough people want a feature that goes against corporate gatekeepers' interests, someone who's able to code it up might go do it.
Hopefully (and likely?
) the many eyeballs are a bigger benefit than they're a detriment; it does take time to weed out the amateurish---which is different from amateur---patches and bug reports, though.And in our current software landscape where the dominant free OS is unix-like, the hackers (and power users) enjoy a different kind of freedom too: they're more free to tweak their computer so it performs the way they like it to.
As I recall, when I was using proprietary (non-unix-like) OSes I couldn't as easily automate things and write small nifty shell scripts to help me make my computers run just right.
I think this is a valuable (but different) form of empowerment that may be useful to illustrate to people the free software ideas: "now imagine that the software didn't have the knob you wanted to twist; why, you could add that yourself, or if enough people want it they might.
[etc.]"But to recap my first point: even if free software isn't automagically more secure and less crash-prone, we can make it so, and due to its nature it is secure from some of the annoyances seen in proprietary software.
That alone is a big win; and I hear here on slashdot that the headaches had and salaries spent when ensuring license compliance make free software a good value proposition from the get-go.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154454</id>
	<title>Depends on the type of code</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266331260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The answer depends on the type of code, process used, and history of the people involved.  I don't doubt that a PM at Microsoft believes that every bug is simple to find if just enough eyes look at it. No doubt at all.</p><p>I've worked on real-time space vehicle GN&amp;C code where a slow answer is a wrong answer. We've had a few really complex bugs and a large number of "duh" bugs that the review team studied, but then were convinced it was fine. We've also had bugs where 20 seasoned professionals missed the bug and someone with less than a month on the job caught it because he (actually, it was me) didn't assume something operator order of the compiler that everyone else had assumed. I looked up what the order of operations was and found something very non-standard.</p><p>I've seen many array bounds bugs, string handling bugs, pointer miss management bugs, RTTC bugs and library bugs. Most common bugs can be avoided by how you write your code, IME.</p><p>1) Always set variables to known values at instantiation and when you are completed with them.<br>2) Always perform tests with the constant on the left side of the comparison operator.<br>3) Always set pointers to non-allocated memory to NULL before and after use. It is easy to continue using a pointer that happens to work even when it points to a freed memory block. Better to get a null pointer access error during development than for anyone to find it during runtime.<br>4) Run all code through an indentation tool to correct any user specific styles.</p><p>Oh, I've seen rendezvous code fail due to only using a single precision floating point variable in the calculations. The fix was to use double precision floats AND to initialize the variable to ZERO at the end of the calculation, so when another rendezvous 3 body problem calc <a href="http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Three\_body\_problem" title="scholarpedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Three\_body\_problem</a> [scholarpedia.org] was requested, errors didn't add up over time. Actually, this issue was discovered during a flight with many multiple rendezvous guidance calculations. Here's a mention of GN&amp;C issues <a href="http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=26977" title="spaceref.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=26977</a> [spaceref.com] in a NASA release.</p><p>Did I mention - I am a rocket scientist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The answer depends on the type of code , process used , and history of the people involved .
I do n't doubt that a PM at Microsoft believes that every bug is simple to find if just enough eyes look at it .
No doubt at all.I 've worked on real-time space vehicle GN&amp;C code where a slow answer is a wrong answer .
We 've had a few really complex bugs and a large number of " duh " bugs that the review team studied , but then were convinced it was fine .
We 've also had bugs where 20 seasoned professionals missed the bug and someone with less than a month on the job caught it because he ( actually , it was me ) did n't assume something operator order of the compiler that everyone else had assumed .
I looked up what the order of operations was and found something very non-standard.I 've seen many array bounds bugs , string handling bugs , pointer miss management bugs , RTTC bugs and library bugs .
Most common bugs can be avoided by how you write your code , IME.1 ) Always set variables to known values at instantiation and when you are completed with them.2 ) Always perform tests with the constant on the left side of the comparison operator.3 ) Always set pointers to non-allocated memory to NULL before and after use .
It is easy to continue using a pointer that happens to work even when it points to a freed memory block .
Better to get a null pointer access error during development than for anyone to find it during runtime.4 ) Run all code through an indentation tool to correct any user specific styles.Oh , I 've seen rendezvous code fail due to only using a single precision floating point variable in the calculations .
The fix was to use double precision floats AND to initialize the variable to ZERO at the end of the calculation , so when another rendezvous 3 body problem calc http : //www.scholarpedia.org/article/Three \ _body \ _problem [ scholarpedia.org ] was requested , errors did n't add up over time .
Actually , this issue was discovered during a flight with many multiple rendezvous guidance calculations .
Here 's a mention of GN&amp;C issues http : //www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html ? pid = 26977 [ spaceref.com ] in a NASA release.Did I mention - I am a rocket scientist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The answer depends on the type of code, process used, and history of the people involved.
I don't doubt that a PM at Microsoft believes that every bug is simple to find if just enough eyes look at it.
No doubt at all.I've worked on real-time space vehicle GN&amp;C code where a slow answer is a wrong answer.
We've had a few really complex bugs and a large number of "duh" bugs that the review team studied, but then were convinced it was fine.
We've also had bugs where 20 seasoned professionals missed the bug and someone with less than a month on the job caught it because he (actually, it was me) didn't assume something operator order of the compiler that everyone else had assumed.
I looked up what the order of operations was and found something very non-standard.I've seen many array bounds bugs, string handling bugs, pointer miss management bugs, RTTC bugs and library bugs.
Most common bugs can be avoided by how you write your code, IME.1) Always set variables to known values at instantiation and when you are completed with them.2) Always perform tests with the constant on the left side of the comparison operator.3) Always set pointers to non-allocated memory to NULL before and after use.
It is easy to continue using a pointer that happens to work even when it points to a freed memory block.
Better to get a null pointer access error during development than for anyone to find it during runtime.4) Run all code through an indentation tool to correct any user specific styles.Oh, I've seen rendezvous code fail due to only using a single precision floating point variable in the calculations.
The fix was to use double precision floats AND to initialize the variable to ZERO at the end of the calculation, so when another rendezvous 3 body problem calc http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Three\_body\_problem [scholarpedia.org] was requested, errors didn't add up over time.
Actually, this issue was discovered during a flight with many multiple rendezvous guidance calculations.
Here's a mention of GN&amp;C issues http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=26977 [spaceref.com] in a NASA release.Did I mention - I am a rocket scientist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153078</id>
	<title>Re:Choose freedom, not some $attribute</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266353100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Choose freedom first and interested parties will take care of attributes like security, ease-of-use, and compatibility over time.</p></div><p>Maybe if you measure time in decades. I'm tired of waiting years for hardware support. Years in which I can't use hardware I bought to it's full potential. And I'm tired of wasting countless hours in those years with trial and error testing to see if support actually exists.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Choose freedom first and interested parties will take care of attributes like security , ease-of-use , and compatibility over time.Maybe if you measure time in decades .
I 'm tired of waiting years for hardware support .
Years in which I ca n't use hardware I bought to it 's full potential .
And I 'm tired of wasting countless hours in those years with trial and error testing to see if support actually exists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Choose freedom first and interested parties will take care of attributes like security, ease-of-use, and compatibility over time.Maybe if you measure time in decades.
I'm tired of waiting years for hardware support.
Years in which I can't use hardware I bought to it's full potential.
And I'm tired of wasting countless hours in those years with trial and error testing to see if support actually exists.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31161634</id>
	<title>Re:PEBCEK is the issue...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266321360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Unless you're writing some insanely complex application like a launcher for thermonuclear missiles, you pretty much will have user error as a major instigator of bugs.</p></div><p>Two problems with your argument here:</p><p>1. Why would the actual launch code for thermonuclear missiles be the penultimate example of code complexity?</p><p>if(launchButtonPressed()==true &amp;&amp; failSafesDisengaged()==true)launchMissle();</p><p>2. From 2000 to 2008, the person between the keyboard and the chair when it came to pressing the button was George W. Bush - a guy who couldn't even send an email...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless you 're writing some insanely complex application like a launcher for thermonuclear missiles , you pretty much will have user error as a major instigator of bugs.Two problems with your argument here : 1 .
Why would the actual launch code for thermonuclear missiles be the penultimate example of code complexity ? if ( launchButtonPressed ( ) = = true &amp;&amp; failSafesDisengaged ( ) = = true ) launchMissle ( ) ; 2 .
From 2000 to 2008 , the person between the keyboard and the chair when it came to pressing the button was George W. Bush - a guy who could n't even send an email.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless you're writing some insanely complex application like a launcher for thermonuclear missiles, you pretty much will have user error as a major instigator of bugs.Two problems with your argument here:1.
Why would the actual launch code for thermonuclear missiles be the penultimate example of code complexity?if(launchButtonPressed()==true &amp;&amp; failSafesDisengaged()==true)launchMissle();2.
From 2000 to 2008, the person between the keyboard and the chair when it came to pressing the button was George W. Bush - a guy who couldn't even send an email...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152496</id>
	<title>When you bring more heat than light</title>
	<author>Progman3K</author>
	<datestamp>1266259020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Getting software right is very, very difficult.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Code review alone is not sufficient. Testing is not sufficient. Tools are not sufficient. Features are not sufficient.</p></div></blockquote><p>One of these things is not like the other...</p><p>Features are to software correctness as apples are to oranges.</p><p>Really, do not subscribe me to your newsletter, mr 'program manager'</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Getting software right is very , very difficult .
... Code review alone is not sufficient .
Testing is not sufficient .
Tools are not sufficient .
Features are not sufficient.One of these things is not like the other...Features are to software correctness as apples are to oranges.Really , do not subscribe me to your newsletter , mr 'program manager '</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Getting software right is very, very difficult.
... Code review alone is not sufficient.
Testing is not sufficient.
Tools are not sufficient.
Features are not sufficient.One of these things is not like the other...Features are to software correctness as apples are to oranges.Really, do not subscribe me to your newsletter, mr 'program manager'
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152944</id>
	<title>Re:Code fixes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266351720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I spent part of today working around problems with a closed source application.
The other part of the day has been working with an open source program, where I've already solved the problem</p></div></blockquote><p>I can't see the logic in that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>I write closed source software for living. With that logic, whenever there is a problem with the software, I just change the licence to some open source licence like BSD or GPL and problems gets magically easier to solve?</p><p>I've never sent bug fixes to open source applications but I've sent two bugfixes to Microsoft (and no, I don't work for them).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I spent part of today working around problems with a closed source application .
The other part of the day has been working with an open source program , where I 've already solved the problemI ca n't see the logic in that : ) I write closed source software for living .
With that logic , whenever there is a problem with the software , I just change the licence to some open source licence like BSD or GPL and problems gets magically easier to solve ? I 've never sent bug fixes to open source applications but I 've sent two bugfixes to Microsoft ( and no , I do n't work for them ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I spent part of today working around problems with a closed source application.
The other part of the day has been working with an open source program, where I've already solved the problemI can't see the logic in that :)I write closed source software for living.
With that logic, whenever there is a problem with the software, I just change the licence to some open source licence like BSD or GPL and problems gets magically easier to solve?I've never sent bug fixes to open source applications but I've sent two bugfixes to Microsoft (and no, I don't work for them).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31155694</id>
	<title>Re:PEBCEK is the issue...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266338940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Unless you're writing some insanely complex application like a launcher for thermonuclear missiles, you pretty much will have user error as a major instigator of bugs.</p></div></blockquote><p>I wrote some of the launch code for the Peacekeeper (aka MX) system.  It was not complex.  In fact the code for testing the system was much more complex than the actual system itself.</p><p>I can say from hard experience that the code internal to the OpenOffice.org application suite and the code internal to the OpenLDAP server and client libraries are vastly more complex that the code that lights the match on a thermonuclear missile.  Launchers for thermonuclear missiles are butt-simple compared to code that has to meet the expectations of non-technical users.</p><blockquote><div><p>Until you get your code into the hands of users who - for example - will repeatedly hit the ENTER key wile waiting for a response, you don't have a clue what might happen.</p></div></blockquote><p>Absolutely true.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless you 're writing some insanely complex application like a launcher for thermonuclear missiles , you pretty much will have user error as a major instigator of bugs.I wrote some of the launch code for the Peacekeeper ( aka MX ) system .
It was not complex .
In fact the code for testing the system was much more complex than the actual system itself.I can say from hard experience that the code internal to the OpenOffice.org application suite and the code internal to the OpenLDAP server and client libraries are vastly more complex that the code that lights the match on a thermonuclear missile .
Launchers for thermonuclear missiles are butt-simple compared to code that has to meet the expectations of non-technical users.Until you get your code into the hands of users who - for example - will repeatedly hit the ENTER key wile waiting for a response , you do n't have a clue what might happen.Absolutely true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless you're writing some insanely complex application like a launcher for thermonuclear missiles, you pretty much will have user error as a major instigator of bugs.I wrote some of the launch code for the Peacekeeper (aka MX) system.
It was not complex.
In fact the code for testing the system was much more complex than the actual system itself.I can say from hard experience that the code internal to the OpenOffice.org application suite and the code internal to the OpenLDAP server and client libraries are vastly more complex that the code that lights the match on a thermonuclear missile.
Launchers for thermonuclear missiles are butt-simple compared to code that has to meet the expectations of non-technical users.Until you get your code into the hands of users who - for example - will repeatedly hit the ENTER key wile waiting for a response, you don't have a clue what might happen.Absolutely true.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31155340</id>
	<title>MS blasted for bug-ridden OS, tries to spread FUD</title>
	<author>StuartHankins</author>
	<datestamp>1266337020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So if I understand this correctly, Microsoft -- who can't seem to get the bugs shaken out of its products, who can't seem to release anything that doesn't require a security patch in the first few months of its life, who can't seem to stop the buffer overruns and associated "old" problems from crashing their software -- has an opinion of how some other OS is developed, and wants people to believe that the competitors' development model is wrong?<br> <br>Wow. Just wow. I didn't realize clueless meters could go that high.<br> <br>Up until recently, Microsoft's code vetting procedures were so bad that in the past, developers snuck in WHOLE GAMES into Excel. How the hell do you miss something like that in a code review? I'm of course assuming that this type of behavior would not be condoned at Microsoft -- maybe it was, and that's part of the problem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So if I understand this correctly , Microsoft -- who ca n't seem to get the bugs shaken out of its products , who ca n't seem to release anything that does n't require a security patch in the first few months of its life , who ca n't seem to stop the buffer overruns and associated " old " problems from crashing their software -- has an opinion of how some other OS is developed , and wants people to believe that the competitors ' development model is wrong ?
Wow. Just wow .
I did n't realize clueless meters could go that high .
Up until recently , Microsoft 's code vetting procedures were so bad that in the past , developers snuck in WHOLE GAMES into Excel .
How the hell do you miss something like that in a code review ?
I 'm of course assuming that this type of behavior would not be condoned at Microsoft -- maybe it was , and that 's part of the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if I understand this correctly, Microsoft -- who can't seem to get the bugs shaken out of its products, who can't seem to release anything that doesn't require a security patch in the first few months of its life, who can't seem to stop the buffer overruns and associated "old" problems from crashing their software -- has an opinion of how some other OS is developed, and wants people to believe that the competitors' development model is wrong?
Wow. Just wow.
I didn't realize clueless meters could go that high.
Up until recently, Microsoft's code vetting procedures were so bad that in the past, developers snuck in WHOLE GAMES into Excel.
How the hell do you miss something like that in a code review?
I'm of course assuming that this type of behavior would not be condoned at Microsoft -- maybe it was, and that's part of the problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153154</id>
	<title>Re:Code fixes</title>
	<author>houghi</author>
	<datestamp>1266310860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Same here. I once saw an error in a css file. This was a file that was created on the fly by the closed source program (don't ask) and it took them 8 months implementing the solution. The irony is that the part that they complain about is what brought up this solution. I was just an extra pair.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Same here .
I once saw an error in a css file .
This was a file that was created on the fly by the closed source program ( do n't ask ) and it took them 8 months implementing the solution .
The irony is that the part that they complain about is what brought up this solution .
I was just an extra pair .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same here.
I once saw an error in a css file.
This was a file that was created on the fly by the closed source program (don't ask) and it took them 8 months implementing the solution.
The irony is that the part that they complain about is what brought up this solution.
I was just an extra pair.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152188</id>
	<title>Disagree</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266255720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, you win. Most open source software hasn't been reviewed very much. Some open source software has security holes, and should not be trusted.</p><p>But, all proprietary software should not be trusted, at all. Proprietary software, by definition, has not been reviewed by <b>anyone</b> who hasn't entered into an agreement with the seller. The risk of accidental holes may be less, but the risk of intentional back doors is much higher.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , you win .
Most open source software has n't been reviewed very much .
Some open source software has security holes , and should not be trusted.But , all proprietary software should not be trusted , at all .
Proprietary software , by definition , has not been reviewed by anyone who has n't entered into an agreement with the seller .
The risk of accidental holes may be less , but the risk of intentional back doors is much higher .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, you win.
Most open source software hasn't been reviewed very much.
Some open source software has security holes, and should not be trusted.But, all proprietary software should not be trusted, at all.
Proprietary software, by definition, has not been reviewed by anyone who hasn't entered into an agreement with the seller.
The risk of accidental holes may be less, but the risk of intentional back doors is much higher.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152598</id>
	<title>Let me be the first to say</title>
	<author>codepunk</author>
	<datestamp>1266260040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>bla, bla, bla<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,bla, bla</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>bla , bla , bla ,bla , bla</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bla, bla, bla ,bla, bla</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153514</id>
	<title>Re:Silent L</title>
	<author>pedestrian crossing</author>
	<datestamp>1266316140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, bugs aren't caused by the user.  They are uncovered by the user.</p><p>Look, I know that users and their unforeseeable behavior is a major aggravation for developers.  As the saying goes, make something idiot-proof, and the world will create a better idiot.</p><p>How can a user actually -create- a bug, when all they are doing is running the program?  They may do something you didn't anticipate, but that's on you.  It's humbling, but blaming the user doesn't do anything to make better software.</p><p>The onus is on the developer, not the user.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , bugs are n't caused by the user .
They are uncovered by the user.Look , I know that users and their unforeseeable behavior is a major aggravation for developers .
As the saying goes , make something idiot-proof , and the world will create a better idiot.How can a user actually -create- a bug , when all they are doing is running the program ?
They may do something you did n't anticipate , but that 's on you .
It 's humbling , but blaming the user does n't do anything to make better software.The onus is on the developer , not the user .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, bugs aren't caused by the user.
They are uncovered by the user.Look, I know that users and their unforeseeable behavior is a major aggravation for developers.
As the saying goes, make something idiot-proof, and the world will create a better idiot.How can a user actually -create- a bug, when all they are doing is running the program?
They may do something you didn't anticipate, but that's on you.
It's humbling, but blaming the user doesn't do anything to make better software.The onus is on the developer, not the user.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31155028</id>
	<title>Re:Code fixes</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1266335340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't really see your point. We already knew there were *some* people who served as "eyes." That's not the issue-- the issue is whether there are enough qualified people serving in that capacity to create quality software.</p><p>In other words, I'd break out the "cool story, bro" image macro here, but Slashdot doesn't do image embedding.</p><p><i>I'm not a "core" developer for any public projects. I've never submitted a bug fix to someone like Microsoft (but have sent bug complaints that went unanswered).</i></p><p>You should see all my bug reports to open source projects that went unanswered. At least Microsoft always emails me back-- open source projects usually don't even triage my bugs in less than 6 months, if you're lucky.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't really see your point .
We already knew there were * some * people who served as " eyes .
" That 's not the issue-- the issue is whether there are enough qualified people serving in that capacity to create quality software.In other words , I 'd break out the " cool story , bro " image macro here , but Slashdot does n't do image embedding.I 'm not a " core " developer for any public projects .
I 've never submitted a bug fix to someone like Microsoft ( but have sent bug complaints that went unanswered ) .You should see all my bug reports to open source projects that went unanswered .
At least Microsoft always emails me back-- open source projects usually do n't even triage my bugs in less than 6 months , if you 're lucky .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't really see your point.
We already knew there were *some* people who served as "eyes.
" That's not the issue-- the issue is whether there are enough qualified people serving in that capacity to create quality software.In other words, I'd break out the "cool story, bro" image macro here, but Slashdot doesn't do image embedding.I'm not a "core" developer for any public projects.
I've never submitted a bug fix to someone like Microsoft (but have sent bug complaints that went unanswered).You should see all my bug reports to open source projects that went unanswered.
At least Microsoft always emails me back-- open source projects usually don't even triage my bugs in less than 6 months, if you're lucky.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152676</id>
	<title>Hogwash</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1266261000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>... Code review alone is not sufficient. Testing is not sufficient. Tools are not sufficient. Features are not sufficient. None of the things we do in isolation are sufficient. To get software truly correct, especially to get it secure, you have to address all phases of the software development lifecycle, and integrate security into the day-to-day activities."</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
What is it you are trying to sell exactly?
Microsoft Secure Development Lifecycle?
</p><p>
"Eyes" on the source code aren't just code reviewers... they also consist of the attackers.
Ok..  attackers have to find vulnerabilities to exploit somehow.
The same techniques used by would-be attackers against the source to find exploitable holes can be used by the community  (with source code access as a pre-requisite) to more effectively and with greater number people <b>searching</b> for things they can take advantage of, the more likely any issue is quicky found.
</p><p>
The only way to find faster, would be perhaps for someone to offer a bounty for anyone finding verifiably exploitable  privilege escalation or remote exploitable  security bugs in a default build of a stock kernel<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
</p><p>
The funny thing is... even addressing "at all phases" of the software development lifecycle and  "integrating security into the day-to-day activities" is not enough to be secure.
</p><p>
Observation:   This is the closest thing I believe I have seen so far, to an admission, from a Microsoftian,  that their  software can be inherently insecure (by design).
</p><p>
Seeing as the initial design is one of the most important parts of the software "lifecycle" by some views of the situation.
</p><p>
But the above quotation didn't argue merely <b>AGAINST</b> more eyes.
It argued that essentially you can't make software more secure by looking at it, having code reviewed, and testing it.
</p><p>
That's absurd.
</p><p>
While there can be security weaknesses that won't be detected by thorough testing or code review, very large classes of security weaknesses can be.
</p><p>
Also, the complexity of the software systems interacting comes into play here...
</p><p>
Applications with simple well-controlled interactions and stable API  (E.g. not like Windows)  are less likely to have security issues that can escape a good code review.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... Code review alone is not sufficient .
Testing is not sufficient .
Tools are not sufficient .
Features are not sufficient .
None of the things we do in isolation are sufficient .
To get software truly correct , especially to get it secure , you have to address all phases of the software development lifecycle , and integrate security into the day-to-day activities .
" What is it you are trying to sell exactly ?
Microsoft Secure Development Lifecycle ?
" Eyes " on the source code are n't just code reviewers... they also consist of the attackers .
Ok.. attackers have to find vulnerabilities to exploit somehow .
The same techniques used by would-be attackers against the source to find exploitable holes can be used by the community ( with source code access as a pre-requisite ) to more effectively and with greater number people searching for things they can take advantage of , the more likely any issue is quicky found .
The only way to find faster , would be perhaps for someone to offer a bounty for anyone finding verifiably exploitable privilege escalation or remote exploitable security bugs in a default build of a stock kernel : ) The funny thing is... even addressing " at all phases " of the software development lifecycle and " integrating security into the day-to-day activities " is not enough to be secure .
Observation : This is the closest thing I believe I have seen so far , to an admission , from a Microsoftian , that their software can be inherently insecure ( by design ) .
Seeing as the initial design is one of the most important parts of the software " lifecycle " by some views of the situation .
But the above quotation did n't argue merely AGAINST more eyes .
It argued that essentially you ca n't make software more secure by looking at it , having code reviewed , and testing it .
That 's absurd .
While there can be security weaknesses that wo n't be detected by thorough testing or code review , very large classes of security weaknesses can be .
Also , the complexity of the software systems interacting comes into play here.. . Applications with simple well-controlled interactions and stable API ( E.g .
not like Windows ) are less likely to have security issues that can escape a good code review .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... Code review alone is not sufficient.
Testing is not sufficient.
Tools are not sufficient.
Features are not sufficient.
None of the things we do in isolation are sufficient.
To get software truly correct, especially to get it secure, you have to address all phases of the software development lifecycle, and integrate security into the day-to-day activities.
"

What is it you are trying to sell exactly?
Microsoft Secure Development Lifecycle?
"Eyes" on the source code aren't just code reviewers... they also consist of the attackers.
Ok..  attackers have to find vulnerabilities to exploit somehow.
The same techniques used by would-be attackers against the source to find exploitable holes can be used by the community  (with source code access as a pre-requisite) to more effectively and with greater number people searching for things they can take advantage of, the more likely any issue is quicky found.
The only way to find faster, would be perhaps for someone to offer a bounty for anyone finding verifiably exploitable  privilege escalation or remote exploitable  security bugs in a default build of a stock kernel :)

The funny thing is... even addressing "at all phases" of the software development lifecycle and  "integrating security into the day-to-day activities" is not enough to be secure.
Observation:   This is the closest thing I believe I have seen so far, to an admission, from a Microsoftian,  that their  software can be inherently insecure (by design).
Seeing as the initial design is one of the most important parts of the software "lifecycle" by some views of the situation.
But the above quotation didn't argue merely AGAINST more eyes.
It argued that essentially you can't make software more secure by looking at it, having code reviewed, and testing it.
That's absurd.
While there can be security weaknesses that won't be detected by thorough testing or code review, very large classes of security weaknesses can be.
Also, the complexity of the software systems interacting comes into play here...

Applications with simple well-controlled interactions and stable API  (E.g.
not like Windows)  are less likely to have security issues that can escape a good code review.

	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152672</id>
	<title>It's a fair point, with regard to security</title>
	<author>Edgewize</author>
	<datestamp>1266261000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Open source bugs get fixed because people notice and are bothered by the bugs.  This is the biggest motivator of open source contributions - everybody has an itch to scratch.  The bugs that get fixed fastest are the bugs that are encountered the most.  And this is why the Microsoft guy is absolutely correct in his analysis.</p><p><b>Bad security is not a user-facing bug.</b>  Unlike functionality bugs, there is little incentive for community members to identify and fix security bugs.  Sure, the Linux kernel and other key packages will attract expert eyes, but the average random piece of open-source software will not.</p><p>Security analysis is both complicated and un-glamorous.  There are not a lot of people attracted to that kind of work.  There are even fewer people who would do it for free.  The position of the linked article is that it's better to pay people to think about security than it is to rely on the principles of OSS.  I agree 100\%.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Open source bugs get fixed because people notice and are bothered by the bugs .
This is the biggest motivator of open source contributions - everybody has an itch to scratch .
The bugs that get fixed fastest are the bugs that are encountered the most .
And this is why the Microsoft guy is absolutely correct in his analysis.Bad security is not a user-facing bug .
Unlike functionality bugs , there is little incentive for community members to identify and fix security bugs .
Sure , the Linux kernel and other key packages will attract expert eyes , but the average random piece of open-source software will not.Security analysis is both complicated and un-glamorous .
There are not a lot of people attracted to that kind of work .
There are even fewer people who would do it for free .
The position of the linked article is that it 's better to pay people to think about security than it is to rely on the principles of OSS .
I agree 100 \ % .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open source bugs get fixed because people notice and are bothered by the bugs.
This is the biggest motivator of open source contributions - everybody has an itch to scratch.
The bugs that get fixed fastest are the bugs that are encountered the most.
And this is why the Microsoft guy is absolutely correct in his analysis.Bad security is not a user-facing bug.
Unlike functionality bugs, there is little incentive for community members to identify and fix security bugs.
Sure, the Linux kernel and other key packages will attract expert eyes, but the average random piece of open-source software will not.Security analysis is both complicated and un-glamorous.
There are not a lot of people attracted to that kind of work.
There are even fewer people who would do it for free.
The position of the linked article is that it's better to pay people to think about security than it is to rely on the principles of OSS.
I agree 100\%.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154060</id>
	<title>Re:To get software truly correct...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266325980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does anyone know?</p><p>Microsoft is as welcomed to study the issue as anyone. More so, as they write more software than possibly any other corporation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone know ? Microsoft is as welcomed to study the issue as anyone .
More so , as they write more software than possibly any other corporation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone know?Microsoft is as welcomed to study the issue as anyone.
More so, as they write more software than possibly any other corporation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152368</id>
	<title>Re:PEBCEK is the issue...</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1266257880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's simply not true. Proper, bug-free code should fail gracefully in the event of odd user behavior. It may be that random mashing of the keyboard will give the user some unexpected results but it should never cause the program to go into a state that it was not designed to go into, such as trying to access 0x00000000.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's simply not true .
Proper , bug-free code should fail gracefully in the event of odd user behavior .
It may be that random mashing of the keyboard will give the user some unexpected results but it should never cause the program to go into a state that it was not designed to go into , such as trying to access 0x00000000 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's simply not true.
Proper, bug-free code should fail gracefully in the event of odd user behavior.
It may be that random mashing of the keyboard will give the user some unexpected results but it should never cause the program to go into a state that it was not designed to go into, such as trying to access 0x00000000.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31157314</id>
	<title>Re:Choose freedom, not some $attribute</title>
	<author>oakgrove</author>
	<datestamp>1266345840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hi troll.  Your classically simple-minded FUD tactic of intentionally conflating physical objects and copyrighted software code is as pathetic as it is transparent.  They are completely different things.  It would be like trying to draw conclusions about trademarks by looking at patent law.  It just makes you look stupid when you say it out loud.  You should apply for a job at the RIAA.  They love people like you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi troll .
Your classically simple-minded FUD tactic of intentionally conflating physical objects and copyrighted software code is as pathetic as it is transparent .
They are completely different things .
It would be like trying to draw conclusions about trademarks by looking at patent law .
It just makes you look stupid when you say it out loud .
You should apply for a job at the RIAA .
They love people like you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi troll.
Your classically simple-minded FUD tactic of intentionally conflating physical objects and copyrighted software code is as pathetic as it is transparent.
They are completely different things.
It would be like trying to draw conclusions about trademarks by looking at patent law.
It just makes you look stupid when you say it out loud.
You should apply for a job at the RIAA.
They love people like you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152602</id>
	<title>Re:You're shifting the point</title>
	<author>martin-boundary</author>
	<datestamp>1266260160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What better development cycle?
Before I'll try someone's dev cycle, I want to see that it actually works.
From TFA's conclusion:<blockquote><div><p> <b>In product after product, Microsoft continues to ship fewer vulnerabilities than our competitors</b>. Look at the results from Jeff
Jones blog: <a href="http://blogs.technet.com/security/" title="technet.com">http://blogs.technet.com/security/</a> [technet.com]. Jeff is a Microsoft guy, of course, and thus not an entirely impartial source.
But conduct your own research, use your own methodology and I think youll see: <b>in product after product, the Microsoft offering
is usually more secure than the competitors. We achieved those results through long-term sustained application of the SDL</b>.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Bwahaha. Nothing to see here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What better development cycle ?
Before I 'll try someone 's dev cycle , I want to see that it actually works .
From TFA 's conclusion : In product after product , Microsoft continues to ship fewer vulnerabilities than our competitors .
Look at the results from Jeff Jones blog : http : //blogs.technet.com/security/ [ technet.com ] .
Jeff is a Microsoft guy , of course , and thus not an entirely impartial source .
But conduct your own research , use your own methodology and I think youll see : in product after product , the Microsoft offering is usually more secure than the competitors .
We achieved those results through long-term sustained application of the SDL .
Bwahaha. Nothing to see here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What better development cycle?
Before I'll try someone's dev cycle, I want to see that it actually works.
From TFA's conclusion: In product after product, Microsoft continues to ship fewer vulnerabilities than our competitors.
Look at the results from Jeff
Jones blog: http://blogs.technet.com/security/ [technet.com].
Jeff is a Microsoft guy, of course, and thus not an entirely impartial source.
But conduct your own research, use your own methodology and I think youll see: in product after product, the Microsoft offering
is usually more secure than the competitors.
We achieved those results through long-term sustained application of the SDL.
Bwahaha. Nothing to see here.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153350</id>
	<title>Way to misunderstand Linus' Law</title>
	<author>Karellen</author>
	<datestamp>1266313380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can this guy not even <em>read</em>? Or is he just too lazy to do the tiniest bit of research into Linus' Law actually is? From <a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/ar01s04.html" title="catb.org">The Cathedral And The Bazaar</a> [catb.org]:</p><blockquote><div><p>Linus was behaving as though he believed something like this:</p><p>8. Given a large enough beta-tester and co-developer base, almost every problem will be characterized quickly and the fix obvious to someone.</p><p>Or, less formally, ``Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.'' I dub this: ``Linus's Law''.</p><p>My original formulation was that every problem ``will be transparent to somebody''. Linus demurred that the person who understands and fixes the problem is not necessarily or even usually the person who first characterizes it. ``Somebody finds the problem,'' he says, ``and somebody else understands it. And I'll go on record as saying that finding it is the bigger challenge.'' That correction is important; we'll see how in the next section, when we examine the practice of debugging in more detail. But the key point is that both parts of the process (finding and fixing) tend to happen rapidly.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Linus' Law says nothing about how many bugs are introduced into a system, or how well code is generally audited. All it says is that once someone <em>finds</em> a bug, if you have enough people looking <em>at that bug</em>, someone will figure out what the problem is, and someone will figure out a solution, pretty quickly.</p><p>That's it. And it is still true.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can this guy not even read ?
Or is he just too lazy to do the tiniest bit of research into Linus ' Law actually is ?
From The Cathedral And The Bazaar [ catb.org ] : Linus was behaving as though he believed something like this : 8 .
Given a large enough beta-tester and co-developer base , almost every problem will be characterized quickly and the fix obvious to someone.Or , less formally , ` ` Given enough eyeballs , all bugs are shallow .
' ' I dub this : ` ` Linus 's Law''.My original formulation was that every problem ` ` will be transparent to somebody'' .
Linus demurred that the person who understands and fixes the problem is not necessarily or even usually the person who first characterizes it .
` ` Somebody finds the problem,' ' he says , ` ` and somebody else understands it .
And I 'll go on record as saying that finding it is the bigger challenge .
' ' That correction is important ; we 'll see how in the next section , when we examine the practice of debugging in more detail .
But the key point is that both parts of the process ( finding and fixing ) tend to happen rapidly .
Linus ' Law says nothing about how many bugs are introduced into a system , or how well code is generally audited .
All it says is that once someone finds a bug , if you have enough people looking at that bug , someone will figure out what the problem is , and someone will figure out a solution , pretty quickly.That 's it .
And it is still true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can this guy not even read?
Or is he just too lazy to do the tiniest bit of research into Linus' Law actually is?
From The Cathedral And The Bazaar [catb.org]:Linus was behaving as though he believed something like this:8.
Given a large enough beta-tester and co-developer base, almost every problem will be characterized quickly and the fix obvious to someone.Or, less formally, ``Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.
'' I dub this: ``Linus's Law''.My original formulation was that every problem ``will be transparent to somebody''.
Linus demurred that the person who understands and fixes the problem is not necessarily or even usually the person who first characterizes it.
``Somebody finds the problem,'' he says, ``and somebody else understands it.
And I'll go on record as saying that finding it is the bigger challenge.
'' That correction is important; we'll see how in the next section, when we examine the practice of debugging in more detail.
But the key point is that both parts of the process (finding and fixing) tend to happen rapidly.
Linus' Law says nothing about how many bugs are introduced into a system, or how well code is generally audited.
All it says is that once someone finds a bug, if you have enough people looking at that bug, someone will figure out what the problem is, and someone will figure out a solution, pretty quickly.That's it.
And it is still true.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31155202</id>
	<title>Who says it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266336240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft Windows is the most unsecured operating system. What do they have to say about security matters...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft Windows is the most unsecured operating system .
What do they have to say about security matters.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft Windows is the most unsecured operating system.
What do they have to say about security matters...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31158796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31155688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31155694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31156656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31161026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31157060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31157710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31156184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31155000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31158496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31156972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31156292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31156000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31156946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31155214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31161634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31160640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31159334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31161852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31164594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31156562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31155028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31156426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31157314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31156100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31160250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31156640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_0151226_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_0151226.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31155000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31156184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31161852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31159334
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153796
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_0151226.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152620
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_0151226.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152840
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_0151226.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31156562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153398
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_0151226.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31156018
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_0151226.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31161634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31155694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152368
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152700
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31156100
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31155688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152348
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31164594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154552
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_0151226.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154232
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_0151226.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31155028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152638
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_0151226.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153514
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_0151226.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153388
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_0151226.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153350
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_0151226.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152146
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_0151226.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153326
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_0151226.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152188
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_0151226.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152496
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_0151226.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152282
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_0151226.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152420
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_0151226.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31161026
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_0151226.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152540
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_0151226.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31156656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31155214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154954
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31160640
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31158796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31156000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154266
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_0151226.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31156292
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_0151226.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152392
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31156640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31156972
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152556
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152974
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154366
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154112
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153724
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154028
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153726
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31160250
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31157314
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153994
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153888
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154120
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31157710
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154104
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154740
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153886
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31154808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152932
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31156946
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31156426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153078
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_0151226.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153232
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_0151226.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31152268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31158496
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_0151226.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31153516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_0151226.31157060
</commentlist>
</conversation>
